Is Nigeria a Colonial State?

A law firm organised a conference on freedom of information earlier this year to which I was invited. When time came to contribute to the discussions, I urged participants at the event to recognise the fundamental issues involved in passing a freedom of information bill. My argument was essentially that constitutional law in nation-states, and laws having a bearing on constitutional structure, political power and fundamental human rights usually reflect the balance of power within such states. The constitution of the United Kingdom for instance has evolved from a full monarchy to a titular monarchy within a parliamentary democracy essentially reflecting the shifting balance of power in that country.

The Americans constructed a constitution reflecting the aspirations of its founding fathers for a federal democracy in which all men would be free and in which no man would be all-powerful. Given that the US was founded by people in search of liberty and freedom, the US constitution reflects those realities and biases. It is the same for other countries. The existence of a freedom of information bill in a country reflects the fact that political power in those countries reside with the people. Only a truly democratic nation could enact a real freedom of information bill. China for instance, in spite of its economic success cannot afford to promulgate a freedom of information law. Neither can Saudi Arabia, Iran or Cuba. Nigerians I therefore argued should recognise that our real assignment would be to change the balance of power in the Nigerian state in favour of the people.

I agreed that passage of the freedom of information bill would be a big bonus in the journey towards altering that balance of power, but I cautioned that no one knows that better than the present custodians of the state, who know only too well the potential of such legislation in exposing corruption, deepening participatory democracy and expanding fundamental human rights. Accordingly given the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the Nigerian state, it would be very naive to expect an authentic freedom of information bill to be enacted. That was why ex-President Obasanjo did not sign the bill passed by the past National Assembly, and that was why I was pessimistic that the current Assembly would do the same.

Given the feedback I received during and after the seminar, I realised (quite to my surprise) that my hypothesis was a bit too complicated for some of the attendees and speakers, even for a gathering of lawyers and journalists. One particular learned gentleman asked whether I was a coup plotter! After the event Ms Valerie Ogbuah, Businessday’s late law editor (may her sweet gentle soul rest in peace) sent me an e-mail requesting me to document my views for Businessday’s law pages, which I did and which she published. In that publication, I added that Nigerians must be vigilant as to the contents of any freedom of information bill that would be passed by the current legislature. Again, knowing the nature of the Nigerian state, I suspected that when the state was cornered on the matter, the legislature would resort to subterfuge-enact a law that carries the title “Freedom of Information” but whose contents would be diametrically opposed to any such notion.

The day the Presidency gathered all its appointees into the Aso Rock banquet hall, brought in a judge, and made all of them swear publicly to an oath of secrecy, any notions that this government is supportive of free access to information by the citizens and the mass media became fanciful and unrealistic. It was significant that the presidency which could have asked those appointees to sign those oaths privately (like secret cults do) and inserted same in their files, chose to have the event done publicly perhaps to signal to those citizens who think Nigeria belongs to them that, “No, this country belongs to the government!” Now we hear that the Senate Committee on Information has re-drafted the Bill to actually make it virtually impossible to access information, much as I expected.

The roots of the problem go back to our colonial times. The colonial government created a state reflecting the needs of a government that had imposed itself on a conquered people-a colonial army and police “force” oriented towards maintaining public order by force of arms and brainwashed into regarding the citizenry as “bloody civilians”, Government Reservation Areas (GRAs) in which colonial officers could live in safety and seclusion from angry natives, Official Secrets Acts and “General Orders” which preserved the colonial masters’ secrets from exposure to citizens and nationalist leaders, and laws against sedition which prevented educated natives from inciting the populace against the colonialists. While these were perfectly understandable needs of a colonial regime, the tragedy is that at independence, nationalist politicians merely inherited the colonial state with little or no changes. opeyemiagbaje.blogspot.com

Agbaje is CEO of Resources and Trust Company Ltd-a strategy, consultancy and business advisory firm. RTC POLICY is the policy, government and political consultancy division of the company.