Freedom of information: A prerequisite for sustenance ...

2 downloads 0 Views 449KB Size Report
fundamental human rights; upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human .... awarded is no more classified, who would still award 80 billion naira contract just to ..... and produced the document was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, American.
Citation: Ohiagu, O. P. (2010). Freedom of information: A prerequisite for sustenance of Nigerian democracy. In G.B. Okon and A. Udoudo (Eds.), Political communication and Nigerian democracy. Port Harcourt: Amethyst & Colleagues Publishers.

Freedom of Information: A prerequisite for Sustenance of Nigerian Democracy Abstract The right to freedom of thought, freedom to hold opinion, to receive and impart ideas and information without open or subtle restrictions, the freedom to publish and disseminate information and the right to partake in the governance of the nation are dimensions of fundamental human rights; upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by all member nations of the United Nations in 1948. Nigeria as a signatory and member nation endorsed these rights as freedom of expression subsequently in sections 36 and 39 of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions respectively. The position of this paper is that these inalienable rights and freedoms which are universally established must be recognized, protected and religiously adhered to in order to guarantee democracy and good governance in Nigeria. In effect, freedom of information in its two dimensions of free and full access to essential public information and the liberty to communicate to others without interference, penalty or reprisals is advocated as the way to sustain a truly democratic social system in Nigeria. In essence the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, 2007 is the mandate of this work on all relevant authorities, while condemning unequivocally any deliberate and calculated device to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled to by virtue of the constitutional guarantees. To accept that a free flow of information is the way to achieve democracy is to undertake to overcome whatever clogs the flow of information in the system.

It is pertinent to start this chapter by making two categorical statements: one, that the dearth of freedom of information in the country is one major reason democracy has remained an illusion in Nigeria even after 50 years of her purported political independence. A second assertion is that for ‘authentic democracy’ to be established and sustained, freedom of information must be enshrined in the Nigerian constitution and be implemented to the letter.

Freedom of information includes among other things the right of every citizen to have free and full access to the facts that directly or indirectly concern him/her. Such unrestricted access to all necessary official information is a crucial dimension of freedom of information and a condition

for any society to hold, because only a well–informed society can take intelligent or judicious decisions. Besides, an uninformed society can easily become unruly and hard to govern. In other words, Information guarantees peace since only an informed society can make intelligent decisions, information gap on the other hand generates misunderstandings and consequently unruly behaviours. A free flow of public information in any social group is a mark of good governance and evidence that those in power have no skeletons in their cupboards; it also encourages transparency. In fact, transparency is unachievable without unrestricted access to public information; while attempting to attain democracy without transparency is paradoxical. Information ensures transparency and eliminates corruption. Above all it endorses an effective participation of an informed electorate which is what democracy is about. Literally, the word democracy simply means the rule of the people; coined from a Greek word dēmokratiā, meaning dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”). So mathematically we may arrive at the formula: democracy = people’s (demo) government (cracy). From early childhood many of us memorized the popular Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy as government of the people, by the people, for the people. This has remained a universally acceptable understanding of the concept of democracy. The classical Greece society (the home of modern democracy) practiced direct democracy where the people were directly involved in the governance of the land. But the modern society with its large population has made direct democracy impossible. Rather, representative democracy in which representatives of the people are elected to enable the masses participate through those representatives in the governance of the nation has taken the place of direct democracy not only in Greece but in most societies.

In other words, the large population of most nation states in modern society does not make direct democracy feasible; therefore representative democracy is what is often implied by the term, democracy. But when the government is not representative of the people’s will, the system ends up with either aristocracy (government by the best, aristos) or oligarchy (government by the few, oligos) rather than representative democracy. Whereas when the populace is well-informed and their opinions sought, they can still effectively participate in national discussions on issues that directly or indirectly affect them even when they are not directly involved with the governance of the country. Dahl (2009) captures well what ingredients make a good democracy, which of course include an informed electorate and the right to communicate with others:

At a minimum, an ideal democracy would have the following features: Effective participation. Before a policy is adopted or rejected, members of the dēmos have the opportunity to make their views about the policy known to other members. Equality in voting. Members of the dēmos have the opportunity to vote for or against the policy, and all votes are counted as equal. Informed electorate. Members of the dēmos have the opportunity, within a reasonable amount of time, to learn about the policy and about possible alternative policies and their likely consequences. Citizen control of the agenda. The dēmos, and only the dēmos, decides what matters are placed on the decision-making agenda and how they are placed there. Thus, the democratic process is “open” in the sense that the dēmos can change the policies of the association at any time. Inclusion. Each and every member of the dēmos is entitled to participate in the association in the ways just described. Fundamental rights. Each of the necessary features of ideal democracy prescribes a right that is itself a necessary feature of ideal democracy: thus every member of the dēmos has a right to communicate with others, a right to have his voted counted equally with the votes of others, a right to gather information, a right to participate on an equal footing with other members, and a right, with other members, to exercise control of the agenda. Democracy, therefore, consists of more than just political processes; it is also necessarily a system of fundamental rights. (Underline, mine). So any member of a democratic society has the right to effective participation; the right to exercise his franchise i.e. to be voted for and to vote for other persons or issues and more importantly to have his/her vote counted as equal to that of other members; a right to be informed and to inform others; and a right to contribute to the national agenda. Other features of ideal democracy also noted by Dahl (2009) include: Freedom of expression. Citizens may express themselves publicly on a broad range of politically relevant subjects without fear of punishment. Independent sources of information. There exist sources of political

information that are not under the control of the government or any single group and whose right to publish or otherwise disseminate information is protected by law; moreover, all citizens are entitled to seek out and use such sources of information. Consequently, citizen control of the agenda, freedom of expression, independent sources of information, an informed electorate among other things are necessary for effective participation in any representative democracy.

An objective and honest assessment of the existing Nigerian democracy against the above benchmarks will certainly engrave a failure grade on the scoreboard. None of these features characterize Nigerian democracy in a significant manner. Rather, in the Nigerian setting the supposed people’s government, which is constituted of a few handpicked or rather s–elected individuals, keep from the vast majority of the same people, information about how they are governed, how their resources are managed, controlled or even shared by their few representatives as the case may be. But then how can there be a genuine democracy without the masses at the center stage? And how can the people participate effectively in national issues, policies and decisions if they are not made aware of these? The title of a book launched in Port Harcourt in 2009 “Democratizing without the People” captures the mock democracy that prevails in the Nigerian nation. Thomas Jefferson, a former American President, once asserted that information is the currency of democracy. Yet we attempt to practice democracy void of information. What a contradiction! How can the majority of the people be locked up in the dark or be tactfully schemed out of facts they should know in the ruse of ‘classified information’, forgetting that the information whether classified or not is about the affairs of the people and would eventually affect them? This deflates the supremacy of the people which is a non–negotiable feature of a democratic society. Freedom of information is often restricted under the guise of national security or interest. For example, is it not utterly absurd to imagine that some past leaders secretly borrowed money on behalf of the people from World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), obviously to be paid back by the people long after they would no longer be in power, without the courtesy of informing the masses who are also stakeholders for the fact that they would have to pay back the loan in due course?

This paralyzing secrecy culture has been well played out recently with the whole Nigerian nation held hostage for more than three solid months now on the whereabouts and health condition of the no 1 citizen. Surely the president’s state (health and life) has grave consequences on the political and economic life of this nation. It is then highly unimaginable that the president of a country could disappear for more than 100 days without any logical explanation or information to that effect. No doubt his whereabouts or medical condition is a crucial matter and intelligible knowledge of which is necessary for the leaders and the lead to take informed decisions on the state of the nation. Then how could the country be put to a three –months–standstill position in order to protect the interest of one person or a few?

Rather than grant access to public

information of this sort because Mr. President is a public person, those concerned selfishly preferred to stagnate the nation in order to hold on to some personal goals. One would not but wonder which one is more important to such people: the presidency and by extension the nation or the person of the president? Besides wasting three months of the nation’s life resulting from the unofficial disappearance of the number one public officer in Nigeria, it also cost the nation huge sums of money. The millions of naira spent by the many government functionaries who had to travel to Saudi Arabia in search of the president is a typical dramatization of how inaccessibility to fundamental information perforates the national resources. Democracy is about good governance, transparency and accountability. How are these values reflected in the scenario above where national resources are wasted seeking to unravel a piece of information the country deserved to know ab initio? Ironically this information was not hoarded from the masses alone but even from the ruling class. In an AIT news report on February 18, 2010, justifying the planned Federal Executive Council’s trip to Saudi Arabia, a top government officer voiced the national lament: “It is embarrassing that since November, we do not know where the president is. If we do not know his whereabouts then I don’t know who should know. Mr. President is a public property we need to know where he is and his health condition”. The many months of this presidential incommunicado has heated up the polity in an unquantifiable manner and is threatening to destroy the democratic system. Deficiency in essential information leads to severe deformation, and no healthy democracy can emerge from a severely deformed society.

Asekome (2008, p.278) observes that “access to information is one of the greatest tools that enhances economic advancement, good governance and sustainable democracy. Lack of information creates gaps, misunderstanding and lack of trust between the government and the governed.” Access to public information is certainly a necessary condition for democracy to flourish. If democracy is understood as a system of government where the interests of the masses are protected, where the opinions of the masses are recognized, respected and accommodated in all the dimensions of governance, where the few serving leaders protect the desires and aspirations of the many whom they represent; then for the achievement of such a people-oriented and people-driven leadership, an unrestricted flow of information from the government to the governed and vice versa cannot be substituted. If the will of the people is truly the basis of the authority of the government, then the people would be carried along and their wishes would be reflected in all matters.

Freedom of Information involves the right of the people to know the whole truth; it compels the disclosure of all government affairs as well as matters of public interest. It forbids relevant public information being hidden from public knowledge or being swept under carpets to protect personal interests. It emphasizes the need for transparency, responsibility, responsiveness, good conduct, due process, openness, and accountability of government and public officers to the people. It is no more news that corruption is one of the principal endemics of the Nigerian society. And of what use is democracy when corruption is the norm? This writer therefore, unambiguously prescribes a therapy for the corruption scourge: transparency and open door policy achievable only through free flow of information. For example, if information about how contracts are awarded is no more classified, who would still award 80 billion naira contract just to supply flowers to the government house? If we can access how much a government functionary spends on oversea treatment of cold and catarrh, perhaps the figures will no longer be as outrageous as when we are barred from having such records. If all government acts can become public knowledge the two options are that either EFCC gets an independent unit to cope with daily arrests or corruption will be forced out of the system.

De Torquille (1970) in Njoku (2008, p. 315) confirms that “without surveillance, government could degenerate into an irresponsible cabal, perpetuating its schemes in secret.” Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB) The free flow of public information that this study is advocating for is what the Freedom of Information Bill now titled Freedom of Information Act, 2007 is all about. According to a publication by Nigerian Freedom of Information Coalition (2008, p.1), FOIB is a bill for an act to make: -

public records and information more freely available;

-

provide for public access to public records and information;

-

protect public records and information to the extent consistent with the public interest;

-

protection of personal privacy;

-

protect serving public officers from adverse consequences for disclosing certain kinds of official information without authorization;

-

and establish procedures for the achievement of those purposes and related purposes thereof.

Nigerian Freedom of Information Coalition (2008, p. 28) explains that the bill is a “proposed law that seeks to give every Nigerian citizen a legally enforceable right of access to records, documents and information held by the government institutions and agencies as well as private bodies performing public functions, subject to certain exemptions.”

Appropriately the bill does not demand for right of access to all information but excluded personal information, information that may be injurious to the defence of Nigeria or to the conduct of international affairs, information which may interfere with law enforcement investigations or injurious to the security of penal institutions, etc. (Nigerian Freedom of Information Coalition 2008, p.30).

Unfortunately, just as we understand how remedial the bill could be to some chronic sicknesses that have been attacking the giant of Africa, some members of the political arm of the state equally understand the consequences of the bill on their personal interests, which of course usually override national interest. To that effect, the bill is still being tossed about on flimsy

excuses. Yet we must continue to firmly state that the passing of that bill into law is indeed the way forward. In contrast to FOIB the Official Secret Acts of 1962 protected public officers in possession of secret or official documents from recklessly divulging them to the public. Such information were often tagged ‘classified’ and thus not for the public. Following the enactment of the Official Secrets Act of 1962 a lot of information about government activities became coded as classified information thus denying the generality of the populace access to such relevant information. Those who go contrary to the Act to expose these government’s corrupt practices or activities do so at a great risk. Yet, keeping certain information out of the reach of the press or the public by government is not exclusively Nigerian. According to an article on censorship in the Encyclopedia Britannica 2009 Ultimate Reference Suite: there is nothing in the United States comparable to the Official Secrets Act and the “D” notice system in Great Britain, which, it seems, effectively restrain editors from publishing materials bearing certain restrictive designations. An attempt was made in 1983–84 by the U.S. government to require thousands of officials handling classified matter to pledge that they would submit any future writings for prepublication review by government censors. Nonetheless, the restriction of access to official records with its resultant lack of transparency, accountability and responsibility is a pain in the neck of the Nigerian democracy. If public officers know that all their acts and misdeeds could become public knowledge, then corruption would not be far from its death post, rebranding would make impact and democracy would finally be solidified. On the contrary, if corrupt practices by public office holders can easily be made to evaporate from public consciousness, if the reputation of Nigerian leaders can never be dented or soiled no matter how close they are to flirty acts, as it obtains today, undoubtedly then there is no limit to what they can do. If that be the case, then the Nigerian democracy can only be for the governed ‘democries” (the cries of the people and not the government of the people) and for those who govern ‘democrazy’ (the craziness of the people).

Citing Locke (1964) Njoku (2008, p.314) consents that “democratic government depend on the consent of the governed and the goodwill of other members of the international comity. And their consent can only be guaranteed when their wishes and aspirations are transformed into functional policies and programmes.” How can a government in the first instance, claim to be democratically elected when the masses have little or no say in the electoral process electing such government functionaries? And how can such a so-called democratic government allege to be representative of the people’s opinions and interests when the people are inhibited from self expression? Freedom of Expression and Press Freedom Freedom of expression is the liberty to express oneself without any form of explicit or implicit control, restrain or effort to stop one from doing so. Freedom of information comprises both the liberty to express oneself or impart ideas to others and the right also to have access to information or to receive information from others. The authority to impart and receive information without restriction is germane to a healthy democratic society. This liberty is the right of every citizen; however, the media by virtue of their responsibility as the purveyors of information deserve the protection of this fundamental right even more. And when the freedom of the press is protected then the liberty and fundamental rights of the individual members of the society is guaranteed. Diri (2008, p.127) citing Ohommbawu (1969) observes that freedom of the press is a hallmark of a democratic society, a basic freedom which is protector and guarantor of all human liberties.

Although the emphasis of this work is on access to information as the major qualification for the realization of Nigerian Democracy; yet, freedom of expression understood as the right to communicate deserves some attention here. In fact, of what use is access to information if one is prohibited from transmitting the information to others using any means of his choice? When the media and other members of the society are granted access to official records without a commensurate constitutional protection from adverse consequences for disclosing the facts to the public, it can only be comparable to throwing a bone to a dog after extracting its teeth.

While the provisions of section 39 subsection (1) of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria grants the citizens explicitly in paper the right to freedom of expression, in essence this legislation is at best merely a silhouette. The history of Nigeria is dotted with uncountable violations of this constitutional right. Nigerian journalists and human rights activists are perhaps often the worst hit on this bondage. Heroes like Dele Giwa and Saro Wiwa are testimonies that despite the constitutional provision, Nigerians have never been free to express themselves or impart ideas without facing the consequences of stepping on big toes. The history of the Nigerian media is heavily decorated with arrests, detention and harassments of journalists as well as proscription and confiscation of publications. The catalogue of these atrocities is not within the scope of this study. Perhaps this ugly experience is aggravated by the fact that the Nigerian journalists have no additional constitutional backing neither are they any more protected than other citizens since freedom of the press is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Rather they derive their freedom of expression from that granted to every other Nigerian stated thus in the above cited section 39 of the constitution: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” In contrast, the First Amendment to the American constitution categorically stated that not even congress, the highest legislative body in the United States can limit or abridge the freedom of the press. ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

In interpreting this First Amendment declaration that no law shall abridge the freedom of the press, some American juries understand it from the absolutist theorists’ perspective as meaning rigidly NO LAW; others take a pragmatic approach as advocated by the MeikleJohn’s theory where freedom of expression is not adored on its own as an abstract concept but only as a means to an end i.e. successful self–government. For the latter group, pragmatically freedom of speech and press are protected in the constitution so that the system of democracy can function. And that is the only reason they are protected.

Pember and Calvert (2006, p, 39) underscored licensing and seditious libel as restrictions to the freedom of the American colonial press and observed that both evils ceased to be a part of the American system since the early part of 18th century. Yet in the 21 st century, we still have them protected by the Nigerian constitution as virtues or normal practices in the Nigerian media system. Freedom of the press is part of the great Anglo–American legal tradition, but it is a right that has been won only through many hard–fought battles. The British discovered the power of the press in the early 16 th century and devised numerous schemes to restrict publication. Criticism of the government, called seditious libel, was outlawed. Licensing was also common…. Licensing ended in the United States colonies in the 1720s. There were several trials for sedition in the colonies, but the acquittal of John Peter Zenger in 1735 by a recalcitrant jury ended that threat. Sir William Blackstone, a popular British legal scholar and compiler of the British law in the 1760’s in his book, Commentaries on the Law of England, had defined freedom of expression as laying no previous restraints upon publication. Reacting to his definition, Pember and Calvert (2006, p, 41) underline that the concept of freedom of expression is certainly wider than merely forbidding licensing, heavy taxation and all other strategies government use to restrain publications, that it also shuns obnoxious laws as seditious libel. Most everyone agrees that freedom of expression meant at least the right to be free from prior restraint or licensing…. Many scholars argue that freedom of expression surely meant more than simply no prior restraint, that it also protected persons from punishment after publication for such offenses as criticizing the government. In other words, the First Amendment also precluded prosecutions for seditious libel. Drawing this back home to the Nigerian system, we may arrive at some pertinent conclusions. Against these premises of democracy and constitutional protection of free speech and press where freedom of expression is understood as no licensing or imposition of other restraint on the press, then freedom of expression in Nigeria is still paralytic. Again that if freedom of expression

is necessary for democracy to function, then by extension the Nigerian democracy is therefore, crippled by absence of free press and an operational free speech. Consequently, this writer rises to condemn in strong terms any deliberate and calculated device in the guise of taxes, licensing or whatever means to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled to by virtue of the constitutional guarantees. Admittedly, beyond government control many other factors limit the press such as overdependence on advertising money (financial control) and the nationwide poverty that makes the media place more value on money pursuit than on its function as the watchdog and conscience of the society. Citing Udoakah, Diri (2008, p. 125) observes that government control of the media is but one form of control, financial control and ownership control are equally limitations on the freedom of the press. However, this work is delimited to the control by government. Most people depend on the media to satisfy their need to be informed. So deterring the press from enjoying this basic right of free speech harms not only the media but the people whom they serve. Diri (2008, p. 127) posits that “any restriction on press freedom is not merely an attack on the press, but a direct encroachment on the fundamental right of the citizen to have knowledge and information. No society can thrive well in an environment where the people are muffled, handcuffed, caged gagged or muzzled from expressing their desires and expectations. Blackstone in Pember (2006) highlight that every man has the undeniable right to lay what sentiment he pleases before the public, to forbid that is to destroy the freedom of the press – but if he publishes what is illegal or mischievous he must face the consequences of his own temerity.

Of course, there are legal frameworks or laws to discipline those who in the exercise of their right of freedom of expression default by offending other individuals or the state, but to forbid them from being heard or to penalize them without justification contradicts the constitution. One of the raison d’être of press freedom is to enhance a participatory governance and ensure the existence of an educated and informed electorate that can make decisions about public

affairs. Ufuophu–Biri (2007, p. 97) concurs that press freedom among other things enables the people to participate in matters that affect them; confers powers on the press to be the watchdog and conscience of the society; grants the freedom and rights of journalists to freely decide what should be published and what should not be published and not to be dictated to by an external body; guarantees access to information of public interest; gives journalists the right to comment on the conduct of public office holders; enables the government to be aware of and to be sensitive to the feelings and attitudes of the people towards government policies, programmes and actions. This guarantees the people’s right to criticize the government constructively through the press. It thus becomes obvious that freedom of expression is fundamental to the entrenchment of democracy and that of a free and developed society. The right to discuss the government, the right to criticize the government, the right to advocate the change of government or political change without suffering reprisals from the government or any constituted authority is what freedom of expression protects. These are dimensions of free speech and free press. The objective of the freedom of the press among other things is to ensure the media’s freedom to comment on issues without any fear of intimidation; to pledge their freedom to comment on the conduct of public office holders without being penalized for their fair comment. It is very important to note that freedom of the press is a necessary condition for the media to play its watchdog role of monitoring the governance of the state. On this role the media play in governance, Denenberg’s (1970) as documented in Njoku (2008, p.314) approves the inquisitive theory which sees the “media as an outfit that inform the sovereign electorate of what their officials are doing or planning to do, thereby enabling public opinion to crystallize. The media then take the sound of public opinion and report on the mood of the nation so that those officials charged with authority may make appropriate response to the wishes of their citizens.” Freedom of the press therefore, means granting the press the liberty to inform the populace and be the watchdog of the government without any open or subtle restraint, or punishment for doing so. The etymological base of this freedom comes from the universal human rights of freedom of expression. In other words, this obligation has its roots or origin in an international document binding on all member states: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights hence the clamour to have the FOIB passed as law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a foundational document of international human rights law unanimously adopted on December, 10 1948 as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” The United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights that deliberated and produced the document was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, American first lady (1933–45), the wife of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States, and a United Nations diplomat and humanitarian. She referred to the document as humanity's Magna Carta literally meaning a charter granting rights.

The declaration of the UN Commission is highly valued universally and binding on all member nations. In its preamble, the declaration “proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.” The document’s anniversary, December 10, is celebrated annually as Human Rights Day. Although the peoples of the United Nations in the charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights through the 30 articles of the document, three of these articles bear directly on the focus of this work. They are: Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right

includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 21

(1)

Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(3)

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government…

Conclusion and Recommendations Since Nigeria is a member of the United Nations, then the above declarations should be valued to the letter as it obtains in other member nations. The populace must be granted the right to freedom of thought, the right to freedom of opinion and expression without interference, the right to take part in the government of the day. And above all the will of the people and only the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government, because the heart of democracy is in the participation of citizens in the governing process. This is the way to guarantee a democratic society according to the universal concept of democracy. To this end, freedom of information understood both as free and full access to essential public information and the liberty to communicate without interference or penalty for doing so, should be recognized and respected as fundamental human rights of everyone. Consequently, the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, 2007 is a mandate on the relevant authorities for the emergence of a truly democratic Nigerian society.

References Asekome, M.O. (2008). Role of the Press in Nigerian Economic Reforms and Democratization Process for National Development in Mass Media in Nigerian Democracy. Ibadan: Stirling–Horden publishers (Nig) Ltd. Diri, C.T. (2008). Press Freedom in Nigeria: The Current Debates on Freedom of Information Bill (FOIB) Perspectives in International Journal of Communication. Nsukka: Communication Studies Forum. Njoku, I. (2008). Effective Information and Media Relations in the Sustenance of Nigerian Democracy in Mass Media in Nigerian Democracy . Ibadan: Stirling–Horden publishers (Nig) Ltd. Pember D. and Calvert C. (2006). Mass Media Law. New York: McGraw Hill Companies.

Ufuophu–Biri, E. (2007). Press Freedom and Media Law in Nigeria in Introduction to Mass Communication Principles and Practices. Uyo: Robertminder International (Publishers) Limited. Other Publications Andreopoulos G J. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). (2009). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica. Dahl, Robert A. Democracy. (2009). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica. Understanding the Nigerian Freedom of Information Bill. (2008). Nigerian Freedom of Information Coalition