The Media Rights Agenda
(MRA) has named the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) as the latest
inductee into its “Freedom of Information (FOI) Hall of Shame” reports ITRealms.
This is coming as MRA warned that the pervasive
culture of lack of compliance with the FOI Act is eroding public trust in the government
and its agencies.
MRA’s Programme Officer, Mr. John Gbadamosi, told ITRealms that NAICOM’s selection by
MRA’s Programme Team, was based on the Commission’s failure to live by its core
values which include transparency, integrity and efficiency, having also failed
to implement and comply with most of its obligations under the FOI Act while
denying citizens the right to obtain information from it.
Mr. Gbadamosi said: “We are extremely concerned that
there appears to be an endless stream of public institutions just waiting to be
inducted into the Freedom of Information Hall Shame, a recognition that no
self-respecting institution should desire.”
He noted that “It is particularly worrisome that a
public institution like NAICOM, established to foster public trust and confidence
in the insurance system, prefers to operate in secrecy and disregard a
fundamental law of the land aimed at enabling the public to access information
about government and its agencies.”
Mr. Gbadamosi argued that in the face of such a
pervasive attitude among so many public institutions, it is difficult for
citizens to believe that government bodies are actually conducting their
business in the interest of the public and that citizens can trust them.
He said: “It is apparent the public cynicism towards
the government is on the increase as public trust and confidence in the
government is being eroded at an alarming rate. There is no doubt that the lack
of transparency and accountability is largely responsible for this situation as
many agencies of government are decidedly but unnecessarily being secretive
about their affairs.”
NAICOM is an agency of the Federal Government
established by the National Insurance Commission Act of 1997 andtasked
with responsibility for ensuring the effective administration, supervision,
regulation and control of insurance business in Nigeria.
Itemizing NAICOM’s breaches of the FOI Act and its
transparency obligations, Mr. Gbadamosi noted that: “Although the Commission
has published some of its operational guidelines along with other financial
reports, it has not fulfilled the rest of its proactive disclosure obligations
under Section 2 of the FOI Act as it has not published either on its website or
anywhere else, other categories of information that are part of the 16 classes
of information that the Act requires all public institutions to proactively
publish and disseminate widely to members of the public through various means,
including print, electronic and online sources”.
In particular, he pointed out that the Commission has
not designated an officer to whom requests for information should be sent, and
has also not proactively published the title and address of the officer either
on its website or anywhere else, as required by Section 2(3)(f) of the Act and
the FOI Implementation Guidelines issued by the Attorney-General of the
Federation.
Mr. Gbadamosi also accused the Commission of failing
to comply with its obligation under Section 29 of the Act by failing to submit
any of the seven reports it ought to have submitted as of February 1,
2018 to the Attorney- General of the Federation on its implementation of
the FOI Act since the enactment of the Law in 2011.
He cited information from the Public and Private
Development Centre (PPDC), an Abuja-based non-governmental organisation, indicating
that NAICOM has not consistently responded to requests for information.
For instance, Mr. Gbadamosi said, NAICOM did not
respond to a request for information dated January 30, 2015, made by PPDC under
the FOI Act in which the organization asked for details of the sums approved
for the Commission as capital warrants in the first, second, third and fourth
quarters of 2014.
He recounted that NAICOM also failed to respond to an
FOI request made to it on August
16, 2016 by PPDC, which asked for the list of contracts awarded by
it in the year 2015 and the procurement plan within its approval threshold for
the year 2016.
He added that although PPDC sent a reminder about the
request to NAICOM on September 5, 2016, there has been no response till date.
Mr. Gbadamosi said NAICOM also refused to respond to
another application for information made on January 25, 2017 by PPDC,
requesting records of payment for capital projects released to it in 2016, the
list of contracts awarded by NAICOM in 2016 and the procurement plan within its
approval threshold for the year 2017.
He contended that since the requested information did
not fall under any of the exemptions in the Act, it can be deduced that the
only logical reason why the Commission refused to provide the information or
respond to the request is its total disregard for the FOI Act and other laws of
Nigeria, adding that “the information should ordinarily have been proactively
published both under the Public Procurement Act, 2007 and Section 2 of the FOI
Act”
Mr. Gbadamosi noted that NAICOM has also failed to
comply with Section 13 of the FOI Act, which requires all public institutions
to train their officials on the public’s right of access to information and to
equip relevant officials with the skills to ensure the effective implementation
of the Act.
MRA called on the management of NAICOM to take urgent
measures to improve the image of the Commission by putting systems in place to
ensure that it complies with all its obligations under the FOI Act and the
guidelines issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation.
It also urged the Attorney-General of the Federation
to step up his efforts at ensuring the effective implementation of the FOI Act
by ensuring that NAICOM and other public institutions to which the Act applies
comply with and implement its provisions.
Launched on July 3, 2017, the FOI Hall
of Shame focuses attention on public officials and institutions that are
undermining the effectiveness of the FOI Act through their actions, inactions,
utterances and decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment