The Media Rights Agenda (MRA), on Friday, condemned the recent call by the Executive Secretary of the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), Dr. Orji Ogbonnaya Orji, for an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 to impose punitive measures on ‘fake Civil Society Organisations’ allegedly ‘misusing’ the law to blackmail public institutions, describing the call as an attempt to discredit the Act and weaken it.
In a statement in Lagos, MRA said that such a proposal is not only ill-conceived but deeply troubling as it undermines the spirit and purpose of the FOI Act, which was enacted to guarantee a right of access to information, promote transparency, and combat corruption, adding that ‘suggesting punitive measures based on vague, subjective and unsubstantiated claims of ‘misuse’ poses a huge risk of the Act becoming a tool for silencing journalists, researchers, civil society actors, as well as other citizens and members of the public who legitimately seek information’.
NEITI however said that Orji’s comment was misinterpreted. In a statement on Friday, its Head, Communications and Stakeholders Management, Mr. Chris Ochonu said ‘While we welcome the right of stakeholders to engage critically on matters of public interest, it is important to clarify that the remarks attributed to Dr. Orji have been taken out of context and misinterpreted in a manner that does not reflect either the intent or the content of his statement. Far from seeking to undermine the FOI Act, NEITI’s position—as expressed during the event—was a reaffirmation of our full and unwavering support for the law as a cornerstone of transparency, civic engagement, and accountability in governance’.
MRA’s Programme Officer, Ms. Ayomide Eweje, had earlier said: ‘We reject any narrative that seeks to criminalise the exercise of a fundamental right under the guise of protecting public institutions. The appropriate response to concerns about abuse of the FOI Act, even if such concerns are legitimate, is institutional transparency, including routine compliance with the Act by all public institutions to ensure its effective implementation and rigorous enforcement of the current mechanisms for ensuring compliance so that no public institution or official is put in a vulnerable position where they can be blackmailed’.
She described as illogical NEITI’s claim that ‘fake NGOs’ had hijacked the FOI Act and were using it to blackmail public institutions, arguing that since every person has a right to request information under the Act, there is no need for anyone to pretend to be representing a non-governmental organization, whether fake or genuine, in order to use the Act; and that when public officials disclose any information requested from them, there is no way they can be blackmailed as any information that is obtained from any public institution under the FOI Act is effectively information that is publicly available and has no blackmail value.
Besides, Eweje noted, if public institutions have grounds for withholding requested information, they also cannot be blackmailed for denying such requests for information as they will be standing on solid ground, adding ‘you can only complain of blackmail if you have done something wrong or even criminal, in which case the appropriate response should not be to amend the Act to protect public officials or institutions engaged in wrongdoing or criminal activities’.
She observed that blackmail and extortion are already criminal offences contained in various Federal and State laws in virtually all the States of the Federation and that there is no conceivable reason why anyone using the FOI Act to blackmail public institution or officials or to extort money or other favours from them cannot be prosecuted under the existing criminal laws without amending the FOI Act to introduce the offences into it.
Eweje said it was particularly disappointing that such a call was coming from the head of NEITI, an agency created to deepen accountability in the extractive sector and strengthen public trust, adding that ‘Dr. Orji’s position contradicts the global standards of openness that NEITI claims to uphold and could damage the credibility of the agency both locally and internationally’.
She urged that instead of seeking to discredit the FOI Act or weaken it, NEITI and other public institutions should commit to full compliance with their disclosure obligations under the Act, build internal capacity to manage FOI requests efficiently and speedily, and promote a culture of openness as a tool for building public confidence in public institutions and government in general.
She declared that MRA and its partners across different sectors and stakeholder groups all over the country remain committed to defending the FOI Act against any attempt to dilute its provisions and effectiveness or to punish citizens and other members of the public for exercising their rights under the Act.
NEITI’s response read, in part: ‘The occasion (14th anniversary of the FOI Act) in question, ably convened by the Centre for Transparency Advocacy, in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Justice, RoLAC, and the CSO Representative on the NEITI Board, was a reflective forum. It provided an opportunity for key actors to assess the progress and challenges in FOI implementation. In that spirit, the Executive Secretary’s remarks called attention to the need for vigilance, experience sharing, and safeguards—not to restrict access, but to protect the integrity of the law from potential misuse by actors who exploit its provisions for purposes unrelated to transparency or the public interest.
‘This concern, as raised, does not target genuine users of the Act—journalists, CSOs, or ordinary citizens—but rather points to emerging patterns of impersonation or blackmail by entities posing as NGOs, in ways that divert attention from the law’s intent. The call, therefore, was for collective introspection, not criminalization.
‘It is equally important to recall NEITI’s historic role in the evolution of the FOI Act. Over a decade ago, our current Executive Secretary, then NEITI’s Director of Communications, served as the desk officer for the agency’s FOI engagement. He worked closely with MRA’s Executive Director, Mr. Edetaen Ojo, and the Federal Ministry of Justice to coordinate multi-stakeholder consultations, mobilise civil society, and shape the content of the law. That commitment remains unchanged.
‘As an institution, NEITI has consistently complied with the FOI Act, reporting annually to the Attorney General, proactively disclosing data, and responding professionally to every FOI request we receive. Our call is not for restriction, but for responsibility—on all sides.
‘Indeed, NEITI is one of the few government institutions in Nigeria that not only fully complies with the FOI Act but exceeds the minimum requirements, as demonstrated through:
•Regular annual FOI compliance reporting to the Attorney-General;
•Proactive disclosures of audit reports, financial data, and procurement records;
•Publicly accessible dashboards and open data portals;
•Unfettered access to reports, contracts, and sectoral analyses.
‘These consistent efforts have earned NEITI national and international recognition as a model for openness in governance.
‘The Executive Secretary’s remarks also highlighted three important and forward-looking recommendations that were unfortunately overlooked in MRA’s statement:
1. The need for sustained training and capacity building for public institutions on FOI compliance;
2. Grassroots public enlightenment and civic education on the responsible use of the law;
3. Stronger institutional frameworks and safeguards, developed in partnership with civil society, to strengthen public trust in the Act.
‘We therefore respectfully encourage MRA to view our comments in the spirit of constructive dialogue and shared commitment. We are open to further engagement with MRA and partners to explore ways of strengthening the Act through capacity building, digital innovation, and experience-based safeguards.
‘Let this not be seen as an attempt to discredit the FOI Act, but as a call to protect the Act, not punish its users; to improve practice, not dilute purpose. Let this moment broaden civic dialogue, not narrow it.
‘Please extend our highest regards to Mr. Ojo and the entire MRA team. We look forward to continued collaboration in advancing transparency, civic rights, and good governance’.
