Dr Reuben Abati, former Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to former President Goodluck Jonathan and principal anchor of Arise TV “The Morning Show”, is at it again. He has made yet another profound statement.
For a man who has spent a substantial part of his professional life in the media, you can understand his frustration. This time, he reveals that in Nigeria’s Aso Rock Presidential Villa lurks an animal he describes as “Need to know.”
The Need To Know administrative doctrine unilaterally keeps other people, citizens usually, in the dark about issues of national importance, because of what those in government regard as national security.
America’s Secretary of Defence under the Jimmy Carter presidency, Harold Brown, defines national security as “the ability to preserve the nation’s physical integrity; to maintain its economic relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms; to preserve its nature, institution and governance from disruption from outside; and to control its borders.”
This rather laboured definition by Secretary Brown suggests that national security is all about protecting a nation from internal and external military (and economic) aggression. Some, like Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who declared that he was the state of France, think national security is the protection of those in government.
It is interesting that some state actors, servants of the people, assume the role of the all-wise-know-it-alls who have the monopoly of wisdom that gives them the audacity to keep certain information away from the people.
It is the same arrogance that makes those who run Nigeria assay to measure how much the people who voted them into power and such high offices are allowed to know about the way they are (mis)governed.
It defeats the purpose of Section 39 of Nigeria’s Constitution which grants “…freedom to receive… ideas and information without interference,” to every citizen of Nigeria, who is also “entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions.”
Also, Section 45(1) of the Constitution effectively takes away this right “(a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.”
The “Need to know” doctrine relates to the principle or policy of telling people only what is deemed necessary for them to know. Some of the jargons of the trade of those who measure the level of information to be revealed to the citizens are, “restricted, confidential, secret, top secret, classified (or declassified, when they choose to reveal an information to the public), outright lie and so many other strange terminologies for secrecy or obfuscation.”
Following is what Abati had to say with the authority of someone who should know: “We are running a regime of secrecy, and if you’ve been in government like I had, the mindset there is that there is something they call ‘the need to know.’”
He concludes: “So, government officials determine what they think you should know: That itself defeats the objective of an open society, of an open government. So, we are not running an open government; we’re running a closed government.” Confessions of a…
Catholic Reverend Father George Ehusani reminds Nigerians that “In 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan passed into law (the) Freedom of Information legislation. This was hailed as a major breakthrough for the information regime in the countrty.”
He however, regrets that “the state has since then continued to act as if it is still under the old military regime, even if the FoI Act states clearly that it supersedes the 1962 Official Secrets Act,” which restricts the information that the media can report.
Nigeria’s Official Secret Act of September 13, 1962 “serves as a check against the publication of highly confidential information or documents that may weaken or limit the integrity of any government and, by extension, threaten the security of the state.”
Official Secret is described as the piece of information that is expected to be known only by the government and its employees. To protect it public servants are often made to swear an oath of secrecy.
If you can find the time to wade through the generally bald, opaque, text of the so-called FoI Act, you will see that it is laden with so many ouster clauses that render it an ineffectual and toothless bulldog.
Section 4(a) says, “Where information is applied for under this Act the public institution to which the application is made shall, subject to sections 6, 7, and 8 of this Act, within seven days after the application is received, make the information available to the applicant.”
But Section 4(b) delivers the wedge between request and release: “Where the public institution considers that the application should be denied, the institution shall give written notice to the applicant that access to all or part of the information will not be granted, stating reasons for the denial, and the section of this Act under which the denial is made.”
Decree 4 of Major General Muhammadu Buhari’s military government declared, “Any person who publishes in any form… any message, rumour, report or statement…which is false in any material particular or which brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Military Government or the Government of a state or public officer to ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence under this Decree.”
If Section 22 of the Constitution expects “the press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media… to uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people,” the media must have unrestricted access to information about government activities.
Democracy prospers where citizens are knowledgeable enough to make the best choices. Mass Communication scholars and theorists think ideas should be allowed free reign in the marketplace of ideas.
Wikileaks, through which Jillian Assange publishes newsleaks of mostly classified information provided by anonymous sources, has given red faces to many politicians throughout the world with its exposes.
Before Wikileaks, Daniel Ellsberg, American economist, political activist and military analyst with Rand Corporation – a think-tank dedicated to research and analysis of America’s Armed Service – released scoops of America’s infamous military involvement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967.
The New York Times newspaper claimed that the Pentagon Papers, originally styled, “Report of the Office of the Secretary of the Defence Vietnam Task Force,” showed that President Lyndon B. Johnson’s government “systematically lied, not only to the (American) public, but also to the Congress.”
The Executive Branch unilaterally expanded the scope of its engagement in the Vietnam War without the approval of America’s Congress, whereas Article 1 Section 8 of America’s Constitution provides that “The Congress shall have Power To… provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States… (and) To declare War.”
In 2011, America’s National Archives and Records Administration repented of its arrogance and released the Pentagon Papers, save for some 11 words, still unknown to the American people.
Anyway, there is hardly any government that does not prevent certain information from going into the public domain for the reason of national security. And some political and (even) mass communication theorists endorse the practice.
State actors should note that the measure of information they mete out will determine the level of cooperation they will get from citizens.
