Government Exist To Protect, Defend Public Good – Rev, Fr. Ehusani

BY AMOS DUNIA, ABUJA – The Executive Director, Lux Terra Leadership Foundation, Rev. Fr. George Ehusani has said that societies are organised, and governments exist, fundamentally to protect, to promote and to defend the public good, stressing that the whole raison d’etre of the modern state is the realisation of the common good of all.

This is as he specifically the biggest challenge to the people’s right to know has been the refusal of authority systems at various levels of state to allow that part of the international covenant to flourish.

He therefore said that there cannot be information for public good when journalists and media houses are targeted mainly for uncovering uncomfortable truths, reporting failures of government or exposing high level corruption.

Fr. Ehusani further said that Nigeria cannot have information for public good when governments or agencies of government routinely weaponize the law, to punish individuals and group that express dissenting views.

Ehusani, who stated these while delivering a key note address in Abuja at a World Press Freedom Day Media Stakeholders’ Round Table, organised by the International Press Centre, Lagos, defined “Public Good” as those provisions and facilities – whether material cultural or institutional – that a community provides to all members in order to fulfil a relational obligation”.

He said that they all have to care for certain interests that they all have in common, adding that a typical examples of the common good in a modern liberal democracy include: the road system; public parks; police protection and public safety; courts and the judicial system; public schools; museums and cultural institutions; public transportation; civil liberties, such as the freedom of speech (which includes the press freedom) and the freedom of association; the system of property; clean air and clean water; and national defense.

Fr. Ehusani, an activist during the Pro-June 12 struggle, said that the term itself may refer either to the interests that members have in common or to the facilities that serve common interests.

He further said; “A public good is non-rivalrous in consumption – A’s benefit of it, does not deny B access to it. A public good is also non-excludable in the long run in the sense that A’s access to it does not pose a threat to B.

“When there is exclusivity of access, that is when one party can prevent the other from the use of a public good. This is potentially a situation that leads not to public good, but public bad or public evil. Exclusivity could be in the form of secrecy, insistence on property rights over the public good, or the use of power or advantages to shut others out, and deny them access, either by force or coercion.

Fr. Ehusani said that it has been established that access to information is a fundamental human right in global order, and in most jurisdictions including Nigeria; an acknowledgment of individual’s rights, and the importance of the media as a vehicle for promoting that right.

He noted that Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria in defining the obligation of the mass media states: “the press, radio, television and other agencies of mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this Chapter and uphold the responsibility of the Government to the people”.

He said that the Chapter of the 1999 Constitution under reference here is Chapter Two, titled “Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy,” adding that the main assignment of the media is information dissemination, analysis, agenda-setting, knowledge diffusion, and entertainment. Section 22 acknowledges the value of information in the governance and democratic process and as a key tool of development in all ramifications.

According to him; “The right of an individual to be part of this process is later upheld in the same Constitution in Section 39 wherein it is stated that “without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions”.

“This idea of the media and free flow of information is on all fours with the American Constitution, the First Amendment thereof. But more importantly, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) describes information as “the oxygen of democracy”, and most essentially, a human right.

“Many other international organizations including the African Union, the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States hold the same position that the right to freedom of information is sacred and inviolable. Internationally, the standards and the basic principles with regard to right of access to information include people’s rights, obligation of the state to publish information, to be transparent and accountable, and to run an open government, to ensure good governance, to run a limited scope of exceptions where applicable, to provide mechanisms for facilitation of access, as well as adequate mechanisms for the protection for whistle-blowers,” he said.

Fr. Ehusani continued; “The depth and scope of this has varied over the years among jurisdictions and media systems. Dictatorial governments, including some of those with pretentions to democracy have routinely adopted repressive measures, legislative processes, economic policies, and sheer use of force to debar or restrict the people’s access to information.

“Whereas international covenants refer to “limited scope of exceptions,” usually with regard to national security, privileged state information, or doctor-client confidentiality etc, many governments have opted for a regime of secrecy and repression. Nigeria provides a convincing illustration in this regard through the following among other instances:

• The Official Secrets Act of 1962 (No.29 of 1962 Laws of the Federation) (see AG Federation vs. Dele and Concord Press). In 2011, Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan passed into law a Freedom of Information legislation. This was hailed as a major breakthrough for the information regime in Nigeria, but 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.
• Some of the repressive decrees imposed on Nigeria’s information space include: Newspapers (Prohibition of Circulation) decree no 17 of 1967, Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No 11 of 1976, Newspaper (Prohibition of Circulation) (Validation) Decree No. 12 of 1978, and the infamous Decree No 4 of 1984.
• Under the military in Nigeria, journalists were routinely harassed, abused, media houses were often shut down, and newspapers were seized and destroyed. Since the return to democratic rule in 1999, not much has changed. As recently as October 2020, in the course of the #EndSARS protests in Nigeria, journalists ended up as victims. At least one media house in Lagos was set on fire. Journalists were detained for simply doing their work. To ensure that information serves its purpose as public good, those in the business of information dissemination must have the freedom to do their work.
• It is important to note that the conflict between the people’s right to know as guaranteed by the Constitution, and promoted by the media, and the unholy determination and desperation by authority figures to annul or circumscribe the people’s rights on the grounds that they do not have the need to know, has been responsible in large measure for our continued experience of misgovernance, authoritarianism, unrelenting corruption among public officers, in Nigeria and such other countries where the right to freedom of information is not duly recognised and protected. The attempt to impose exclusivity rights over news by states and powerful institutions, amounts to using information for public evil rather than public good. Now, what should be done to turn information into the public good that it is meant to be?