THE exclusion of two key areas of our  lives – the economy and defence -from the oversight functions that the Freedom of Information Bill is meant to provide, weakens the effects of the bill before it becomes law.

It seems that the House of Representatives in passing the law was more concerned with excluding the people from knowing more about the two most important aspects of their lives, areas where the biggest decisions are made, with far reaching consequences for them. What is freedom when it comes bound in chains? How did the House of Representatives makes a law based on fear? What really is this fear?

It is understandable to exclude defence, some aspects of it, and cases under investigation from the scrutiny that the law could enhance. What are “national economic interests”? What makes “national economic interests” so important as to receive this special treatment?  If “national economic interests” are as important as we believe they are, should that not be the more reason why they should be in the public domain?

Chairman of the Justice Committee, Henry Seriake Dickson, said the “bill is intended to increase the availability of public records and information to citizens of the country in order to participate more effectively in the making and administration of laws and policies, and to promote accountability of public affairs.”

The promises cannot be fulfilled with the shackles imposed  in areas like in Section 15, which states, “a public institution may deny an application for information that contains trade secrets, financial, commercial or technical information that belongs to the government and has substantial economic value or is likely to have substantial economic value.”

Who will set the parameters for determining  which information falls into this category? Ordinarily, it looks simple, but on this score alone, a government official decides “information that belongs to the government and has substantial economic value or is likely to have substantial economic value.” It is an enormous responsibility to be left in the hands of one man, without guidelines. Who have been trained to handle this responsibility?

The provision that “It shall be an offence punishable with three years imprisonment for any officer of public institution to destroy, alter, falsify, or deliberately misrepresent information kept in his custody” gives no comfort. There are enough covers in Section 15 to protect a conniving government official.

“The FOI law will certainly aid accountability in our public life,“ said Gbenga Adefaye, President of the Guild of Editors. He is right as the law, if passed could be the toe the public needs to have on the door. The Senate can rescue the situation by improving on the work the House has done.

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo refused to sign the bill before he left in 2007. It has been at the National Assembly since 1999 when a coalition of media rights organisations launched a campaign for its passage into law.

The version that was passed left out most of what was in the earlier bill because governments thought it would give the media limitless powers.