Ignorer la navigation
Nigeria

Conformité FOIA pour la divulgation (NG0011)

Présentation

D'un coup d'œil

Plan d'action: Plan d'action national du Nigeria 2017-2019

Cycle du plan d'action: 2017

Statut: inactif

Institutions

Institution chef de file: Ministère fédéral de la justice

Institution (s) de soutien: Ministère des technologies de la communication, Agence nationale de développement des technologies de l'information, Agence nationale d'orientation, Ministère de l'information, Autorité de la télévision nigériane, Société de radio fédérale du Nigéria, Conseil national de la magistrature, Bureau du chef de la fonction publique de la Fédération, Bureau du secrétaire du gouvernement de la fédération, Assemblée nationale. Coalition pour la liberté de l'information, Ordre des avocats nigérians, Union des journalistes nigérians, Institut d'éthique et de conformité, Universités, Initiative pour un système judiciaire ouvert, Agenda pour les droits des médias, Alerte avocats, Développement connecté

Domaines politiques

E-gouvernement, Transparence fiscale, Droit à l'information

Revue IRM

Rapport IRM: Nigeria Design Report 2017-2019

En vedette: en attente de révision IRM

Premiers résultats: examen IRM en attente

Conception i

Vérifiable: oui

Pertinent avec les valeurs du PGO: accès à l'information, responsabilité publique

Impact potentiel:

Exécution i

Achèvement: examen IRM en attente

Description

Cet engagement vise à améliorer le respect des exigences de publication obligatoire de la FOIA et à garantir le droit des citoyens à l'information.

Résumé du statut à mi-parcours de l'IRM

11: Improved compliance of public institutions with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with respect to the proactive disclosure provisions, stipulating mandatory publication requirements.

Langue de l'engagement telle qu'elle apparaît dans le plan d'action:

“This commitment seeks to improve compliance with the FOIA mandatory publication requirements and secure the right of citizens to information”.

Jalons:

11.1. Design and implement the publication of fully compliant information as provided in the FOI Act, regardless of platform/form by at least 200 public institutions and make it easily accessible to the public.

11.2. Punitive administrative measures to be applied against public institutions adjudged to be in breach of the mandatory publication requirements of the FOI Act.

11.3. Publish responses to recurrent FOI requests on the public platform/in the publication.

Date de début: Janvier 2017 Date de fin: 2018 décembre

Le plan d'action est disponible ici:

Contexte et objectifs

Section 2(3) of Nigeria’s 2011 Freedom of Information (FOI) Act outlines an extensive list of information that public institutions must disclose proactively. These categories include information to be listed (e.g., records under the public institution’s control); 148 information to be described (e.g., a organization and responsibilities of the institution); 149 and information to be disclosed in full (e.g., the names, salaries, titles, and dates of employment of all employees in an institution). 150 Section 2(4) states that a public institution must ensure information is “widely disseminated” through “various means,” including print, electronic, and online sources. 151

At the time of this report, the law did not provide for specific criminal or administrative measures 152 to be applied against public institutions violating mandatory disclosure requirements, however every provision of the Act may be enforced through court proceedings. 153

In the past, proactive disclosure compliance among Nigeria’s approximately 800 public institutions were sub-par. The Nigerian CSO, Right to Know Nigeria (R2K), has conducted several annual surveys of compliance with sections 2(3) and (4) of the FOI Act. In 2015, R2K sampled 39 public institutions (selected on the basis of their compliance with the duty to submit an annual report to the Attorney-General per section 29 of the FOI Act), and found that the average compliance rate was 9.35%, with the most compliant institution achieving 19.5%. 154 For the 2016 report, 44 institutions were sampled. More than half were “below average” in their proactive disclosure, although one, the Bureau of Public Service Reforms, was fully compliant. 155

This commitment seeks to improve compliance with the FOI Act’s proactive disclosure requirements and ensure that basic information on government activities is readily available to citizens. This commitment proposes to:

  • Design and implement publication of fully compliant information per the FOI Act by at least 200 public institutions and make it publicly accessible;
  • Apply punitive administrative measures against public institutions judged to be in breach of the mandatory publication requirements; and
  • Publish responses to recurrent FOI requests on the public platform/in the publication (an information category not currently mandated by the current law).

The emphasis on proactive information disclosure made this commitment relevant to the OGP value of access to information. The “punitive measures” to be applied against public institutions in breach of the mandatory publication requirements (Milestone 11.2) relate to the OGP value of public accountability, as they will require public officials to accept responsibility for not performing legal commitments.

The commitment and its milestones are all specific and measurable. For example, the number of institutions expected to be fully compliant, and the nature of that compliance (proactive information disclosure under the FOI) is clear from Milestone 11.1. Milestone 11.3 could have been more specific by stating the frequency with which responses to recurrent FOI requests should be published on the platform.

If fully implemented, this commitment would be a major step forward for proactive disclosure, and thus a transformative impact. Given that the R2K surveys of proactive disclosure found low levels of disclosure in a small sample of public institutions that were already compliant in other respects (submitting section 29 reports), extending plein compliance with mandatory FOI information categories to 200 institutions (25% of the approximate total) would be a major achievement. Stakeholders in access to information believe that punitive administrative measures would improve compliance significantly, 156 as a lack of consequences for non-compliance had contributed greatly to the near total disregard for this requirement of the FOI Act. 157 According to Edetaen Ojo, Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda, the activities can significantly improve compliance with proactive disclosure. However, as the FOI did not provide for punitive administrative (or criminal) measures, the design of these measures and their basis in the legal framework needs clarification.

The commitment lacks civic engagement. It’s performance indicators include a reduction in the number of FOI requests submitted to public institutions, based on the rationale that proactive, mandatory disclosure would negate some information requests. Yet the milestones do not aim to help citizens better understand the law and the categories of the information the government must proactively publish (through leaflets, community radio programs, SMS campaigns, or workshops).

Prochaines étapes

Les engagements futurs dans ce domaine pourraient comprendre:

  • Clarifying the “punitive administrative measures” under Milestone 11.2 and their legal basis i.e., it is important to say what punitive measures exist and when they would be enforced, the criteria to determine when institutions are in breach, and the level of non-response determining the status of breach;
  • Ensuring that the information proactively published is regularly updated;
  • Stating the frequency with which responses to recurrent FOI requests should be published on the platform;
  • Creating a platform for citizens to track submitted FOIA requests; and
  • Strengthening the civic engagement component of the commitment through public awareness campaigns on the proactive mandatory disclosure requirements of the FOI.
148 Edetaen Ojo (coprésidente de la société civile, OGP / Directrice exécutive, Media Rights Agenda), entretien avec un chercheur de l'IRM, 19 novembre 2018.
149 Id. §2(3)(a).
150 Id. §2(3)(c)(vi).
151 Id. §2 (4).
152 Criminal measures would involve state prosecution and the involvement of the judiciary. Punitive administrative measures, on the other hand, involve measures imposed by the executive only; the national prosecution system is not invoked.
153 Freedom of Information Act, §1 (3).
154 Right2Know, Proactive Disclosure Assessment Report (2015) 31, http://r2knigeria.org/index.php/foi-assessments-reports/2011-2015.
155 Right2Know, Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act, 2011: Compliance Assessment Report (2016) 22–23, http://r2knigeria.org/index.php/foi-assessments-reports/2016.
156 Victoria Etim, (Program Officer, R2K), interview by IRM researcher, 5 Mar. 2019.
157 Ojo, entretien.

Engagements

  1. Budgets participatifs

    NG0015, 2019, audits et contrôles

  2. Mettre en œuvre l'Open Contracting et l'Open Contracting Data Standard

    NG0016, 2019, propriété effective

  3. Déclaration transparente des revenus fiscaux

    NG0017, 2019, Législation et Réglementation

  4. Contrats ouverts et licences dans les industries extractives

    NG0018, 2019, gouvernement électronique

  5. Mettre en œuvre la norme ITIE

    NG0019, 2019, audits et contrôles

  6. Établir un registre de propriété véritable

    NG0020, 2019, propriété effective

  7. Renforcer la législation sur le recouvrement d'avoirs

    NG0021, 2019, Institutions anti-corruption

  8. Mettre en œuvre une stratégie nationale de lutte contre la corruption

    NG0022, 2019, Institutions anti-corruption

  9. Améliorez le respect de la loi sur la liberté de l'information en mettant l'accent sur la gestion des documents

    NG0023, 2019, Renforcement des capacités

  10. Amélioration de la conformité avec l'exigence relative aux dispositions de publication obligatoires (FOIA)

    NG0024, 2019, Renforcement des capacités

  11. Mettre en œuvre un mécanisme de dialogue permanent

    NG0025, 2019, Sexe

  12. Rétroaction globale des citoyens sur les programmes

    NG0026, 2019, gouvernement électronique

  13. Liberté d'association, de réunion et d'expression

    NG0027, 2019, Civic Space

  14. Accroître la participation des personnes vulnérables

    NG0028, 2019, Renforcement des capacités

  15. Mettre en œuvre un nouveau programme informatique dans 6 ministères pour améliorer la prestation de services

    NG0029, 2019, Renforcement des capacités

  16. Instrument juridique pour renforcer SERVICOM

    NG0030, 2019, Législation et Réglementation

  17. Participation citoyenne au cycle budgétaire

    NG0001, 2017, audits et contrôles

  18. Contrats ouverts

    NG0002, 2017, Renforcement des capacités

  19. Transparence du secteur extractif

    NG0003, 2017, propriété effective

  20. Normes de déclaration fiscale

    NG0004, 2017, Transparence fiscale

  21. Indice Doing Business de la Banque mondiale

    NG0005, 2017, Infrastructure et transport

  22. Registre de la propriété bénéficiaire

    NG0006, 2017, propriété effective

  23. Partage d'informations anti-corruption

    NG0007, 2017, Institutions anti-corruption

  24. Législation sur le recouvrement d'avoirs

    NG0008, 2017, Renforcement des capacités

  25. Coordination des activités anti-corruption

    NG0009, 2017, Institutions anti-corruption

  26. Conformité FOIA pour les rapports annuels

    NG0010, 2017, Renforcement des capacités

  27. Conformité FOIA pour la divulgation

    NG0011, 2017, gouvernement électronique

  28. Mécanisme de dialogue permanent

    NG0012, 2017, Transparence fiscale

  29. Examen conjoint de la législation entre la société civile et la société civile

    NG0013, 2017, Surveillance des politiques budgétaires / budgétaires

  30. Commentaires des citoyens basés sur la technologie

    NG0014, 2017, gouvernement électronique

NE PAS suivre ce lien ou vous serez interdit sur le site!