National Assembly constitutes Conference Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill

ABUJA, 2 FEBRUARY 2007: The National Assembly has constituted the Conference Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill to harmonize the two versions of the Bill passed by the House of Representatives and Senate.

Although the Senate named its members on Conference Committee in December 2006, the House of Representatives only announced its members on Tuesday, January 30.

Members of the Committee from the Senate are Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), Senator Udoma Udo Udoma, Senator Jibril Aminu, Senator Nuhu Aliyu, Senator Adeleke Mamora, and Senator Uche Chukwumerije.

The members from the House of Representatives are Honourable Halims Agoda,
Honourable Bunza Farouk Bello, Honourable Abdul Oroh, Honourable Wale Okediran, Honourable Abike Dabiri, Honourable Bala James Ngilari, Honourable Emeka Ihedioha, and Honourable Dipo Oyedoku.

The 14-member Conference Committee will be responsible for harmonizing the two versions of the bill as passed by the House and amended by the Senate during the third reading. The Committee is expected to meet next week to resolve the differences in the two versions of the Bill.

The differences between the two versions of the bill are not substantial. The most significant difference arises from sections 5 of the Bill dealing with the time within which any document or record requested is to be released to the applicant. The original version of the Bill passed by the House of Representatives on August 25, 2004 provides for a period of seven days for the government institution concerned to indicate whether it would grant access to the record and, if so, to release it to the person requesting it.

However, in the version of the Bill passed by the Senate on November 15, 2006, this period was increased to 14 working days.

The Senate also inserted a new subsection into this section proposing that in counting the 14 working days, the date in which the fee is received by a pubic institution should not be included.

Another major difference is contained in section 9 of the Bill dealing with the fees payable for access to records and documents. The House of Representatives' version of the Bill made elaborate provisions to guide government institutions in fixing fees, and specifically requires that fees be limited to the actual cost of providing the document or record requested, such as duplication, transcription, or search. However, the Senate version merely authorized government or public institutions to make regulations prescribing fees to be paid for documents applied for both for commercial and non-commercial purposes, thereby giving a wide discretion to the government institution to set the fees.

The Senate version also provides that the fees should be paid at the time the application for the document or record is requested.