Introduction
For clarity, it is always prudent to start with a definition of terms, particularly as some terms that are presumed to mean the same things to everybody could actually mean different things to different people. There are many definitions of the word “Accountability.” Some definitions, perhaps unhelpfully, simply define accountability as “being accountable.” Others focus on key attributes such as information, explanation and consequences. Writing for the World Bank in 2005, John Ackerman defines accountability as “…a proactive process by which public officials inform about and justify their plans of action, their behaviour and results and are sanctioned accordingly.”
I would prefer to view accountability as a mutually-reinforcing relationship between the donation of power and the responsibilities expected of the exercise of that power. In public life, this concept directly affects three constituencies: The People, The Politicians, and The Public Servants. I will therefore explore this topic with regards to donation of power and the responsibilities expected of each of the constituencies.
The People
According to the 1999 constitution, “…sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria from whom government through this constitution derives all its powers and authority.” The term “The People” therefore encompasses all citizens and groups, including politicians and public servants. It gives all citizens of Nigeria the power to choose their government and to give that government a mandate to govern, accompanied by certain expectations and demands. This is the start of the accountability chain.
Politicians develop manifestos that promise the citizens the good life: stable electricity, better healthcare, safer streets, improved national security, more food, economic prosperity, and more jobs. Through elections, they seek the mandate of the people to govern and ask to be judged on their record of delivering on their promises. This raises certain responsibilities for each of the three constituents.
First, there is a responsibility on citizens to vote, ensure it is counted and make sure their votes count. This is a civic privilege and responsibility that many citizens lost their liberty, and even their lives, to secure for the people. The freer the elections, the more accountable the politician is likely to be. Nothing focuses the mind of the politician like the prospect of losing power at the next elections, knowing that they cannot manipulate those elections.
Second, the public service has the solemn responsibility to organise free, fair and credible elections that ensures the representation of the people’s will. If the comedian, thief or village idiot is the preferred choice of the electorate, the public service must ensure that that choice is actualised.
Third, the politician has the responsibility to seek the mandate of the people to exercise power on its behalf. At all times, it must do so with patriotism and responsibility, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number.
My opinion is in line with Rosa Luxembourg position that, “without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.” Hence, the freedom of speech (including the freedom to ask questions and demand answers without fear of retribution) and the freedom to vote and be voted for in free, fair and credible elections, must be guarded jealously.
Accountability in its truest sense stems from these two freedoms. Citizens have a right to demand information and explanations from the people it has elected and appointed, and those people that have been elected or appointed have a duty to provide information, explanations and answers. Where they fail to do so or do not do so in a satisfactory manner, the ultimate sanction available to the people is to withdraw the mandate they had earlier given through a subsequent exercise of their votes.
I would prefer to view accountability as a mutually-reinforcing relationship between the donation of power and the responsibilities expected of the exercise of that power
Nigeria has in place a Freedom of Information Act, 2011. Unfortunately, this immensely powerful legislation is grossly underutilised. Apart from a few exceptions, the Act FOI Act says that the only law that you can rely on to deny a request for information under the Act is the Constitution. Although this, in effect, makes the FOI the second most powerful accountability mechanism under Nigerian law, many public servants still hold on to the Official Secrets Acts of 1962. Section 28 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 expressly supersedes the Official Secrets Act when it says:
“The fact that any information in the custody of a public institution is kept by that institution under security classification or is classified document within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act does not preclude it from being disclosed pursuant to an application for disclosure thereof under the provisions of this act”, so long as the said information does not fall under one of the exclusions in the FOI Act.
I therefore call on the government to urgently issue a circular to this effect, as many public servants are still not sure about how the FOI Act affects the Official Secrets Act that they swore to upon their appointment with regards to their official assignments. Anyone that has worked in the public service knows that public servants relate more directly to rules and circulars than to laws. A circular will help to dispel any doubts in the minds of the public servant.
(To be continued)
JOE ABAH
