Uses and challenges of Freedom of Information Act among journalists in Kogi State, Nigeria

Abstract

The study examined the uses and challenges of Freedom of Information Act, 2011 among journalists in Kogi State. It specifically assessed the knowledge level of Freedom of Information Act among the journalists, the extent of usage as well as the challenges to the implementation of the Act among the journalists. The study was anchored on the Libertarian theory of the press. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews were employed to gather data for the study. Six FGD sessions were conducted with 48 practicing and registered journalists across five media outlets as well as the correspondence chapel of the NUJ, Kogi State. This sample was purposively selected for the study. The in-depth interviews were conducted with heads of the media houses selected for FGDs and the chairman of NUJ, Kogi State Chapter. The findings of the study revealed that journalists in Kogi State are aware of the existence of Freedom of Information Act but they lack adequate knowledge of its provisions. It was also revealed that journalists in Kogi State do not use the provisions of the Act in their professional duties. Challenges inhibiting the implementation of FOIA in Kogi State were identified, and they include low level of knowledge of the contents of the Act by the journalists, lack of commitment by the journalists to understanding the contents of the Act among others. The study therefore recommended that there should be constant training and retraining of Kogi State journalists on the provisions of the FOI Act.

Keywords:

• FOIA
• Bill
• challenges of implementation
• use
• knowledge
• journalists

1. Introduction

Since the beginning of modern journalism in Nigeria in 1859, it has struggled to get the necessary freedom that would enable it to fulfil its societal obligations (Aliede, 2003). Before independence, the colonial authority passed some objectionable laws that gave rise to Nigeria’s fight for journalistic freedom. The first newspaper, Iwe-Irohin (1859–1867), and the successive newspapers that appeared in the 1880s led to the enactment of the Newspaper Ordinance of 1901 and the Seditious Offences Ordinance of 1909, the first press legislation in the nation (Yusuf, 2015). Aminu in Yusuf (2015) highlighted that the British colonial authority began to feel uneasy about the press in the early 1900s and, as a result, began passing laws that were harsh to the press and looking for ways to curb its excesses, particularly towards the colonial administration.

Even after gaining its independence from colonial rule on 1 October 1960 Nigeria retained some of the objectionable press laws passed by the colonialists and went on to enact additional strict media laws, including the Newspaper Seditious Act of 1961, the Defamation Act of 1962, the Official Secret Act of 1962, the Newspaper Amendment Act of 1964, the State Security (Detention of Persons), Decree No. 2 of 1982, and the Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984 among others. All of these regulations were put in place to restrict the press’s ability to gather and disseminate information and to prevent them from holding the government accountable to the people (Omotayo, 2015).

It has not always been easy for journalists to gather and distribute news, mainly because of the limited independence caused by the government’s tight control and grip on the media. The relationship between the government and the media in Nigeria, according to Uche (1989, p. 1), has thus been described as a game of cat and mouse. This suggests that the right to an unrestricted flow of information has been violated. Important information has not been available to journalists, let alone the general public. Journalists have been forced to continue snooping around for information to provide in-depth, accurate, and fair reporting, putting themselves in grave danger and running the possibility of being abused, imprisoned, tortured, or even killed (Ezeah, 2004).

Malayo (2012) says in his contribution that the need to create a free press society has been at the forefront of national discourse, particularly among Nigerian journalists. This is mainly attributable to the fact that it is imperative to have legislation that ensures a high degree of press freedom. In light of the potential benefits it could have for any society, it becomes impossible to ignore. Freedom of information is one of the essential tools for performing journalistic duties. According to Yusuf (2015), journalists will undoubtedly be unable to fulfil their professional duties of informing, teaching, entertaining, monitoring the environment, correlating, and transmitting social legacy, as suggested by Harold Lasswell in 1948, without a proper flow of information.

According to Mohan in Yusuf (2015), in the absence of FOI in a national legal framework, citizens cannot effectively access information about essential services, participate fully in their countries’ social and economic development, or hold their government responsible for public spending. This can negatively affect their rights to health, employment, and education, as well as their ability to fight corruption, among other things.

The difficulties caused by anti-press regulations that overpower the Nigerian constitution have made it appear that journalists will never be able to source, gather, and disseminate news. The Nigerian Guild of Editors report on FOIA well captured this when it noted that:

We are mindful of the responsibilities of the press, but we cannot discharge our function creditably unless the shackles created by repressive laws are eliminated from our law books. The accomplishment of this goal depends on press freedom operating without restrictions. (2001, p. 96)

This explains why the press was leading the charge to get Nigeria’s freedom of information law passed. The necessity for information to be made easily accessible led to the movement for a Freedom of Information Act. Yusuf (2015, p. 28) quoted Ajulo thus:

It is the knowledge of the important role of access to information in determining the collective destiny of a nation-state that birthed the agitation for Freedom of Information Bill in Nigeria which was finally signed into law on May 29, 2011. Therefore, it may be claimed that the fight for a free and vibrant press is inextricably tied to the fight for information freedom.

To adequately perform their professional duties as the fourth estate of the realm and the watchdog of society, the media needs sufficient freedom to seek out, gather, and transmit information. Therefore, it was necessary to enact legislation to ensure that Nigerians and journalists have access to official information, which is why the Freedom of Information Act is being promoted (Berliner, 2014).

Having known that the Freedom of Information Act became essential in the fight for a free press, media scholars started to urge its adoption. For instance, Ogbondah (2003, p. 128) stated that the National Assembly should “enact or guarantee the press and members of the public the right of access to government-held material, including computerized records” before it was ever passed.

In a similar vein, the Media Rights Agenda (2004, p. 4) stated thus on the FOI bill at one point: “When passed into law as an Act of Parliament, it will make public record and information in the custody of any government—Federal, State or Local—available to every citizen in Nigeria”.

Freedom of Information laws, which have been adopted by more than 80 nations worldwide, is one of the critical policies (Berliner, 2014).

Journalists and the Nigerian public should both have access to information under the Freedom of Information Act, which was anticipated to be legally enforceable. With the Freedom of Information Act, it will be possible to obtain information from the President or other public officials regarding any transaction that took place in those offices (Ogbondah, 2003, pp. 128–129). The law is anticipated to improve the record-keeping practices of public institutions by ensuring that government records and documents are correctly kept, as well as to promote the oversight role of the National Assembly by facilitating access to public documents and information required for the work of the National Assembly and its committees.

The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) document, which calls for the adoption of an access to information law as flagship legislation necessary for its successful implementation, also states that it is expected to help the Federal Government realize its agenda for economic reform. As government operations and policies are made more transparent and accessible to the general public, FOIA will also encourage transparency and accountability in governance, as public institutions become aware that their judgments will be made public and have to be supported by objective and justifiable grounds. It will also ensure that government institutions operate more effectively and more effectively (Ogbondah, 2003).

The Federal Government’s anti-corruption laws (such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, the Independent Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offence Act, the Prohibition and Punishment of Bribery Act, the Code of Conduct Bureau Act, and others) will also be complemented and strengthened by this legislation, as accountability and transparency in government are impossible without the right of citizens to access information held by the state or its agencies (Yalaju, 2006).

Above all, the FOIA is anticipated to strengthen Nigeria’s participatory democracy by empowering citizens to make well-informed decisions, encourage compliance, keep an eye out for policy implementation distortions, and, where needed, raise the calibre of governmental judgments and policies. This prospect alone will increase citizens’ feelings of ownership and belonging while preserving public trust in the government. It is understandable why Ogbondah (2003, pp. 128–129) asserts that “A democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation permit, no one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions, which can be revealed without injury to the public interest”.

After numerous attempts, the FOI bill was later passed into law in 2011, and since then, journalists have been required to take full advantage of the Act. This is so that information can be made more readily available to journalists in the same way that it would be for anybody else who requests information from public organizations. Additionally, it is anticipated that once the law is in force, the media will have easier access to more accurate information, which will enhance the standard of media coverage. Yalaju (2001, p. 205) in support of this writes that “The right of access to information is aimed at strengthening the media by safeguarding and protecting freedom of expression and the press in particular”.

The Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Media Rights Agenda (MRA), and Civil Liberty Organization (CLO) were the three civil society organizations that launched the campaign for a law of this sort, even though the Act is not a law governing journalism (Ogbuoshi, 2006). Journalists Tony Anyanwu, Nduka Irabor, and Abike Dabiri each made one presentation of the bill to the National Assembly before the other (Ojebode, 2011). The fact that different journalists played different roles in the passage of the Act indicates that the practice of journalism was likely to be affected.

But despite these efforts from the Nigerian journalists in the enactment of the Act, researchers and media scholars found that many Nigerian journalists had not used the FOI Act correctly (Abone & Kur, 2014; Dunu & Ugbo, 2014; Oberiri, 2016; Omotayo, 2015). This means that little has been done by journalists to make use of the Act’s provisions for their professional dealings. This has called for serious concerns. It may be that journalists are not fully aware of the provisions and the potency of the Act or there may be seeming challenges to the implementation of the Act in Nigeria. Researchers were able to look at the knowledge and use of the Freedom of Information Act among journalists and revealed low knowledge and use of the Act among journalists, none looked at the challenges of implementation of the Act. The purpose of this study therefore is to ascertain how many journalists in Kogi State, Nigeria, are aware of the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, how much they have used it to carry out their professional responsibilities, and what difficulties they encountered in putting the Act into practice.

1.1. Objectives of the study

The aim of this study is to examine the uses and challenges of Freedom of Information among journalists in Kogi State. The specific objectives are as follows:

1. To assess the knowledge level of Freedom of Information Act among journalists in Kogi State.

2. To find out the extent to which journalists in Kogi State use Freedom of Information Act in the discharge of their professional duties.

3. To investigate the challenges of implementation of the Act among journalists in Kogi State

2. Historical background of foia

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law or act that seeks to guarantee citizens access to government-held information. In other words, (FOIA) is a law that enables the public to gain access to information that is possessed by the government agencies. The agencies with public information are required to release such information to the public, and this information can be in the form of printed documents, photographs, videos, maps, e-mail and electronic records. The information is given by a written request from any member of the public and it only applies to agencies of the federal government.

Osa-Oghogho (2015) sees Freedom of Information Act as a legislation that guarantees the right to information within the control of public institutions to all Nigerians, regardless of age, class or occupation, and it effectively gives the right to know to every Nigerians.

Akor and Oko (2015) said FOIA implies a change in the principles of the provision of government information and form a “need to know” basis to a “right to know” basis. It also implies a change from passive citizenship to active citizenship in government.

Section 1 of the FOIA allows the public to get information from government institutions and it is the right of the public to request for the information at any time. The act is intended 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, and the protection of personal privacy, protect serving public officers from adverse consequences of disclosing certain kinds of official information without authorization and established procedures for the achievement of those purposes. (Freedom of Information Act 2011, p.1)

Anyanwu (2013) notes that this new law supersedes the Official Secret Act, provides immunity to public officers who disclose information in good faith, and expects public institutions to keep organized information and records to facilitate early access. The act also presents how to file a request, fees and the responds time to provide the information needed; it also provides exceptions to disclosure like issues of national security and international affairs, right to privacy, law enforcement records, commercial or financial information and enforcement by the courts.

According to Open Society Foundations (2011), the already enacted Freedom of Information Act:

• Guarantees the right of access to information held by public institutions, irrespective of the form in which it is kept and is applicable to private institutions where they utilize public funds, perform public functions or provide public services.

• Requires all institutions to proactively disclose basic information about their structure and processes and mandates them to build the capacity of their staff to effectively implement and comply with the provisions of the Act

• Provides protection for whistleblowers.

• Makes adequate provision for the information needs of illiterate and disabled applicants.

• Recognizes a range of legitimate exemptions and limitations to the public’s right to know, but it makes these exemptions subject to a public interest test that, in deserving cases, may override such exemptions.

• Creates reporting obligations on compliance with the law for all institutions affected by it. These reports are to be provided annually to the Federal Attorney General’s office, which will in turn make them available to both the National Assembly and the public.

• Requires the Federal Attorney-General to oversee the effective implementation of the Act and report on execution of this duty to Parliament annually.

Historically, the Freedom of Information Bill in Nigeria could be traced back to 1993 during the regime of General Sani Abacha in which transparent government was not the order of the day. Edetaen Ojo, Head, Media Rights Agenda (MRA), a young organization for the defence of free expression rights, Civil Liberties Organization (CLO), and the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) Lagos branch spearheaded the drafting of Freedom of Information Bill (FIB). The draft went through several reviews before it was later presented to former President Olusegun Obasanjo in early June 1999, with the hope that the FIB would be forwarded to the National Assembly as an executive measure. Obasanjo declined, advising Media Right Agenda instead to do so if they wished (Ogbuokiri, 2011).

The bill was then submitted to the National Assembly in 1999, as advised by Olusegun Obasanjo but the legislature’s four-year term passed without the bill being voted on.

The bill was re-submitted to the 7th National Assembly under former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan in 2011. It scaled through both the lower and upper chamber of the National Assembly, and the harmonized version was passed by both Chambers on 26 May2011. It was conveyed to Goodluck Jonathan on May 27, and he signed it on 28 May 2011. So far only two states in Nigeria (namely Ekiti and Lagos States) have adopted the Freedom of Information Acts at State level but they have extended the response date at State level from 7 days to 14 days (Ogbuokiri, 2011).

3. Review of empirical studies

Abone and Kur (2014) looked into the impact of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on media practice in Nigeria. The study’s main goals were to identify the extent to which journalists in Anambra state, Nigeria were aware of the Act’s provisions, as well as their perceptions of its strengths and flaws regarding their daily work as journalists and how the Act affected their practices (whether negative or positive). The study used a survey approach. Information was gathered via a questionnaire. Using the proportionate stratified random sampling method, a sample of 165 journalists in Anambra State was chosen from a population of 289 registered journalists. The study’s conclusions showed that the journalists were very knowledgeable about the FOIA’s provisions. Also, the Act was seen by journalists as having a more favourable impact on the practice of journalism. It was concluded that the Act when fully implemented would portends well for Nigerian journalism. It was recommended that journalists should utilize the Act to its fullest. The similarity between the reviewed work and this study is that both studies attempt to determine the degree of awareness of the Freedom of Information Act among Nigerian journalists. The difference is that while the reviewed study had a strong foundation in libertarian theory, this study considers Libertarian theory not relevant enough to well explain the focus of the study, it rather considers Media Dependency Theory to be more relevant. The scopes and methodologies of both studies also differ. The central goal of this study, which is to examine the use and implementation of the FOIA among Nigerian journalists was not captured in the reviewed work.

Another study by Oberiri (2016) examined the impact of Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act on journalists working in the city of Jalingo. The study’s main goals were to ascertain the extent to which the FOIA can support media practices that promote fair, balanced, accurate, and objective reporting, as well as to examine the level of awareness of the FOIA among Nigerian journalists. It also sought to identify any apparent obstacles to the FOIA’s full potential in Nigeria. The study uses survey research. Approximately 293 journalists are living in Jalingo Metropolis. To sample out 75 Journalists who made up the sample frame, the researchers used Taro Yamane’s formula. The instrument for gathering data was a questionnaire. The collected data was displayed thematically. Results showed that journalists in the metropolis of Jalingo are fully aware of the Freedom of Information Act. The study also showed that even though FOIA can support journalism practices toward balanced, accurate, and objective reporting, it has not given journalists in Taraba State access to information held by the government. The latter finding prompted this study because if despite the potency of the Act, it still not guaranteed free access to information, and there seem to be some challenges affecting its full implementation.

Oberiri (2017) also evaluated Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act. The research method used was qualitative. The researcher consulted secondary sources like books, journals, and magazines to gather data. According to the study, Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act contains more sections and clauses exempting information from disclosure than granting access. The researcher interprets this to suggest that some naughty public officials may use these areas for nefarious and unfair ends. The study also noted that some other media laws meant to gag the operation of the press in Nigeria such as the Criminal Code, Statistics Act, Public Complaints Commission Act, Official Secrets Act, and Evidence Act are still in full force, and these are fundamental issues affecting the implementation of the Act. The study recommended that these specific anti-press laws should either be repealed, resisted or expunged. The reviewed work focuses only on the qualitative approach to study the Act and its implementation in Nigeria, failing to take into account that even if the study’s recommendations are carried out, the Act will still be as useless as if it had never existed if journalists themselves are unaware of it, do not fully understand it, or do not use it. However, the challenges bedeviling the implementation of the Act may be the reason journalists do not see the need of using the Act. This should be subjected to empirical research, which this study has decided to carry out.

The reviewed studies were able to look at the knowledge and use of the Freedom of Information Act among journalists and revealed low knowledge and low use of the Act among journalists in other many parts of the country, none looked at the challenges of implementation of the Act, hence the purpose of this study. Also, the reviewed studies were centred on Anambra (Southeast), Jalingo (Northeast) part of Nigeria, so, it becomes imperative to change the study area to another geopolitical zone (Northcentral) considering the fact that Nigeria is highly ethnicized country, and Kogi State being the point of attraction when Northcentral is mentioned is considered the appropriate population for the study.

4. Theoretical foundation: Libertarian theory

The libertarian theory, also known as the free press theory, prescribes that an individual or organization including the press should be free to publish and express information freely (Umechukwu, 2001). The central tenets of the libertarian theory are located in John Milton’s notion of the “self-righting process of the free market place of ideas”. This means that good ideas would drive out bad ones if all ideas were guaranteed free expression (McQuail, 1987).

Also, the ideas of John Stuart Mill were the central foundation of this theory. Mill wrote

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion are even more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. (McQuail, 2005, p. 169)

The ideas of John Milton and John Stuart Mill are in consonance with the principles of the press as a “free market place of ideas”, first put forward in 1918 by an American judge (DeFleur, 2010). This theory is a necessity in a democratic environment since it is important in itself as a core principle of democracy. This explains why many democratic countries incorporate in their constitution the principles of liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

In relation to this study, the libertarian theory explains that the Freedom of Information Act is intended to guarantee freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This is because the Act is aimed at making information freely accessible to whoever needs it. Similarly, the theory is necessary in a democratic society like Nigeria. In other words, Nigeria, a democratic country, cannot do without a press, which is expected to be guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act. The findings of this study will therefore express the extent to which the Freedom of Information Act is predisposed to guarantee a free press in Nigeria.

5. Methodology

This study relies on a qualitative research approach. Data for this study were collected from registered journalists in Kogi State using Focus Group Discussions with in-depth interviews as a supplementary method. Although the study population was 154, only 48 journalists were sampled using purposive and convenient sampling techniques. These 48 journalists were the ones available during the FGD sessions. The number of participants for each session of the FGD was selected based on the number of practising and registered journalists in each media outlet who are available for the FGD. For example, Radio Kogi Lokoja has the highest number of participants (11) for the FGDs because they have a good number of practising journalists registered under NUJ and were available during the session. Six FGD sessions were conducted among journalists working in Lokoja, the state capital. It took the researcher 3 weeks to gather the FGD and interview data. The participants were gathered in their various Conference Rooms for the FGDs. For the in-depth interview, the researcher interviewed (5) heads of media houses selected for the FGDs and the chairman of the Nigerian Union of Journalists, Kogi State chapter. The interviews took place in their various offices, except that of the NUJ Chairman that was conducted on phone. The participants were contacted in-person. The 1^st, 2^nd 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th FGD sessions took place on 21^st to NaN Invalid Date NaN accordingly, while the 6^th FGD session took place on NaN Invalid Date NaN. These were conducted in the English language and recorded by research assistants. The responses were transcribed by the researcher immediately after each session. Going by Rubin, R., Rubin, A. & Haridakis (2010) and Wimmer and Dominick (2011), who noted that FGD is a group discussion involving 6–12 people, the FGD was conducted thus: Radio Kogi Lokoja (11), Grace FM, Lokoja (8), Confluence TV, Lokoja (6), NTA, Lokoja (9), Graphic Newspaper, Lokoja (8), Correspondence Chapel (6). The FGD cut across print (Graphic Newspaper and Correspondents Chapel) and broadcast (Radio Kogi, Grace FM, Confluence TV, NTA); private (Grace FM, Confluence FM), state (Radio Kogi, Graphic Newspaper) and federal ownership (NTA). Data obtained from the FGDs and in-depth interviews were presented using the qualitative method of data presentation. The data analysis was based on the interpretative data analysis where scissors and the sort technique were used. According to Yalaju (2006) in Yusuf (2015), the scissors and sort technique involve using pieces of transcribed text as supporting materials and incorporated within an interpretative analysis. Direct quotations from the transcribed interviews and Focus Group Discussions were used to support the interpretation where necessary. Data collected using both FGDs and in-depth interviews were interpreted simultaneously. As Creswell (1994) suggested in Yusuf (2015), the data collected were transcribed into text, interpreted according to the FGDs and interview sessions, and analysed thematically. The FGD respondents were coded as FGD1A-FGD1K (session 1), FGD2A-FGD2H (session 2), FGD3A-FGD3F (session 3), FGD4A-FGD4I (session 4), FGD5A-FGD5H (session 5), FGD6A-FGD6F (session 6). The six interviewees were coded as R1 – R6. Check appendixes for further information about the FGDs and Interview.

6. Data presentation, interpretation and analysis

The data were analysed and interpreted under the following themes:

6.1. Awareness of the existence of the freedom of information act among journalists in Kogi State

From the FGDs conducted, 45 journalists out of the 48 participating are aware of the existence of the Freedom of Information Act. They understand it is a law that promotes and guarantees access to information held in government. They indicated being aware of all the struggles leading to his enactment in 2011. “Yes, it is the Freedom of Information Act. It guarantees access to information held by public agencies. The bill was passed into law by former President Goodluck Jonathan on 28 May 2011, after a series of discussions in the Nigerian senate”, a participant said.

Their source of information on the Act differs. Some participants noted they learned about the Act through media programmes where issues around the Act were discussed (TV and radio); some got to know it during training organized by their media organizations, while others read it on social media and online platforms.

Only three out of the 48 participants indicated not being aware of the Freedom of Information. One of them said, “I am just hearing this for the first time. I do not even know such a law exists”.

6.2. Knowledge of the content of the freedom of information act among the journalists

Twenty out of 48 participants representing 42% could give an appreciable response to the provisions of the Act. Although only three could recall the number of sections the Act has, they could say something beyond the Act guaranteeing access to information held in government custody. One of the participants who knew the content of the Act said, “The Act has many provisions, one of which is every Nigerian can use the Act irrespective of their status. You have to write an application asking for information. Information is expected to be given within seven days. Government agencies must keep their records and make them available on request”.

Fifty-eight percent of the journalists that participated in the FGDs could not say anything about the content of the Act. This implies low knowledge of the Act among the journalists in Kogi State.

The low knowledge of the content of the Act, as evident by the data, is due to irregular or no training of journalists on the provisions of the Act and poor reading culture among journalists in the state. Only 17 out of the 48 participants indicated attending FOIA training. That is considerably low. The data also showed that only 11 out of 48 participants had taken the time to study the Act independently.

Some of the interviewees attested to the irregular or no training of journalists on the provision of the Act. For example, R5 said, “We are civil servants like others, we work under the state government, and we remit everything we realize from the sales of the newspaper back to them. So, suppose there is a need for training. In that case, it is the responsibility of the state government to do so, not Graphic newspaper as a media outlet”. However, R6 said NUJ had in the past organized training for journalists registered under the body. “Journalists in Kogi State who are registered members of the NUJ under my leadership should be aware of FOIA. NUJ had organized a workshop and a seminar for journalists to orient them on what the law entails and encouraged them to put it in use”.

6.3. Journalists’ perception of the freedom of information act

Most participants in the FGDs had a positive perception of the Act. Forty-seven participants agreed that the Freedom of Information Act, when fully implemented, will enhance professionalism in media practice. “Yes, it will; we will not need to struggle to get information again. If you refuse to give us, you will meet us in court”, a participant said. “It is an Act that guarantees access to information held in government. It is useful not only to journalists but to all Nigerians. It has 32 sections with so many exemptions. The Act protects the person giving information, and once you apply for information, you are expected to be given it within seven days. If not, you will charge the Agency and the person involved to court. Offenders are fined a certain amount within the range of 300 000 to 500 000. I cannot remember the exact amount. Sincerely it is a beautiful law for all Nigerians”, another participant said.

However, there were still negative perceptions of the Act, especially from the interviewees. An FGD participant noted that the Act might not impact journalism professionalism due to the country’s high level of corruption. “I do not think the Act will enhance professionalism when implemented. To me, nothing in this country is working. The constitution of Nigeria has already given us the freedom to own and operate the mass media without interference. However, on several occasions, this right of journalists has been trampled upon, and the press could not do anything. The Act, to me, whether implemented or not, may not bring anything meaningful to journalism practice in this country unless we are ready to do away with corruption among public office holders”, he said.

R3 believed that nothing good might come out of the Act. “The issue of Freedom of Information Act is a serious one. When the bill was enacted, I was pleased about it. I concluded that it will stop issues surrounding press freedom as journalists will now have access to information without restriction. However, little did I know that nothing ever works in this country; I have read severally that some media organizations and NGOs have tried using the Act to access information but were denied. Some even go further to challenge the Agency involved in court, but nothing good came out of it. Then, of what use is it if we continue to experience this”.

6.4. Use of the freedom of information act by journalists in Kogi State

On the use of the Act by the participants, it was gathered from the responses given that 43 out of the 48 participants had never attempted using the provision of the Act to demand information. Only five participants attempted using the Act and were denied access to the requested information. “In fact, I did; that was after I read about it. I applied for information to our State Ministry of Finance trying to know something related to the salaries of our State House of Assembly members”, said a participant. The participant said he was denied the information requested “Not at all, I was denied access to the information, and up till now, no reason was given”.

Reasons were given by the participants for not using the Act differ. “With what I have just heard, I would have loved to use the Act, but you do not expect me to use what I did not have knowledge about”, a participant said.

“I did not use the Act because I did not see the need. I am fully aware that there was an issue of domestication. It was pronounced by a sitting court in Lagos that the Act has to be domesticated across the 36 states of the federation. I remember one of my colleagues calling it FCT Act after such pronouncement because it is only FCT that is not a state in this country”, another participant said.

The heads of the sampled media outlets in Kogi State confirmed via interviews that they had done little to encourage journalists to use the Act. “We have less to do. Journalists should go out and demand information using the provision of the Act. If they are denied, we will take it up from there”, said R1. Also, R3 said, “Sincerely, we have not done much. Although we trained and encouraged journalists to use the Act, I am unaware that the law needs to be passed by our state House of Assembly before it can function here”.

From the in-depth interviews conducted, it was found that none of the media organizations sampled had used the provisions of the Act as a body to demand information from any government agency. The R6 said “there was no need for that; when the need arises, we will do just that”.

6.5. Challenges of implementation of the freedom of information act in Kogi State

The study participants unanimously agreed that implementing the Act in Kogi State is faced with many challenges. They identified several challenges. One of the challenges identified is insufficient or inadequate knowledge of the Act among journalists. Thirty-one out of the 48 journalists who participated in the FGD sessions admitted they had not attended training on the Act, and 37 participants out of 48 admitted they had never seen a soft or hard copy of the Act. A participant said, “I do not know the content because no one told me. We are supposed to be trained on something like this, but all we do here is work and work. The management of this media outlet and even the state government should organize seminars and workshops to train us on something like this”.

The perception that the Act is not workable unless it is domesticated in Kogi State is also considered a challenge in the implementation of the Act among journalists in Kogi State. Domestication in the context of this work means passing a bill establishing the FOIA at the state level by the State House of Assembly. The respondents considered the issue surrounding its domestication before it was operational in a given state as a significant setback in implementing the Act in Kogi State. “I have not used the Act to solicit for information because, to me, it is needless. I am aware that a court of law once pronounced that the Act must be domesticated in a state before it can be bound on that state, and so far, it has not been domesticated in Kogi State”, said a participant.

Another challenge, as identified by the participants, is the unwillingness of public office holders to give out information. “Public officers who are to give us information may not be aware that an Act as such exists, even if they were told, they might not be willing to do that unless they are forced”, said a participant. This correlated with the view of R6 when he said, “First and foremost, there is inconsistency in giving out information by government officials. Government officials are not willing to give information to journalists, and the Freedom of Information Act is too weak to compel them to do so, not when the Act has an exemption which bothers national security, so journalists will hide under it to deny information. Remember, we have some laws gagging the freedom of the press that are still operational. A typical example is the Official Secret Act”.

The issue of widespread corruption and a high level of ignorance of the Act among the workforce in the public sector was also considered as a challenge. “To me, there are many challenges; first, how many of us are aware of the Act? Even if we know it exists, do we have adequate knowledge of it? Let us say we even know much about it. What about the public officers? Have they been trained, and do they have a copy of the Act? Do they know the provisions? Are they aware they should be charged to court if they deny us information? Even if they know all this, corruption will not allow them to do that”, a participant said. Affirming this, R3 said, “It is not enough to sensitize journalists on the provisions of the Act and encourage them to use it, but the sensitization should also go to our politicians and all public office holders. Let them know there is an Act like this, let us acquaint them with its provision. It is then we can hold them responsible if they go against our demand for information using the Act”.

Also identified by the respondents is the fact that other laws hindering press-free access to information are still operational. Participants believed that the Freedom of Information Act would not be effective as long as laws gagging the activities of the press in terms of gathering information are still operational. “ … … .Another factor I considered very important is that if this law must work, we have to first do away with other laws hindering press free access to information”, said a discussant. When asked what those laws are, he added “We have the Official Secret Act, the Criminal Code, Oath of Secrecy, the Evidence Act etc., we have so many of them”. Supporting this, in an interview, R1 said, “You and I know that our laws gagging free access to information in Nigeria and those laws to the best of my knowledge are still operational, like the Official Secret Act, Public Complaint Act etc. The Act itself gave power to these existing laws when it said in Section 30(1) that ‘This Act is intended to complement and not replace the existing procedures for access to public records and information and is not intended to limit in any way access to those types of officials information that has been normally available to the general public. If these laws are not expunged, public office holders will keep hiding under them to deny us information”.

On how to tackle these challenges. It was suggested that journalists should be adequately trained on the content of the Act. “Let there be constant training for journalists on the content of the Act” said a discussant. Another suggestion is that all laws hindering free access to information should be expunged. “Let all laws hindering free access to information be expunged immediately if the Act must function effectively, if not, it will remain a paperwork” said a discussant. Another suggestion is that the issue surrounding the domestication of the Act should be addressed by a competent court of law. “Let our judiciary resolve the issue of domestication, it is a national law, and it is bound on everybody irrespective of which state they found themselves”, said a participant.

7. Discussion of findings

7.1. Knowledge level of freedom of information act among the respondents

The first research question seeks to assess the knowledge level of the FOI Act among journalists in Kogi State. Findings in this regard revealed that practicing journalists registered under NUJ in Kogi State are aware of the existence of the Freedom of Information Act and became aware as a result of exposure to media reports and social media platforms. They understand it is a law that promotes and guarantees access to information held in government custody. However, most of these journalists do not have adequate knowledge of the content of the Act. This finding contradicts that of Oberiri (2016), which revealed that journalists in the Jalingo metropolis have adequate knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, and that of Abone and Kur (2014), who revealed that journalists in Anambra state had a high level of awareness of the provisions of FOIA. The findings, however, agree with those of Yusuf (2015), which revealed that although journalists in North West Nigeria are aware that the FOI bill was signed into law in 2011. However, the knowledge level of the Act among the journalists was considerably lower compared to the findings of other studies such as Oberiri (2016), Abone and Kur (2014).

The low knowledge of the Act among journalists in Kogi State is connected to irregular or no training of journalists on the provisions of the Act and poor reading culture among the journalists and the fact that majority of the journalists sampled indicated they studied courses other than journalism and mass communication at higher education level. The majority of the journalists studied (31 out of 48) had not attended any training on FOIA. Also, most of the journalists (37 out of 48) had never studied the Act. Aliede (2003), in his work “FOIA and challenges of journalism practice”, also attributed low awareness of the Act among Nigerian journalists to poor reading culture.

7.2. The use of freedom of information act among the respondents

The second research question seeks to determine the extent to which journalists in Kogi State use the Freedom of Information Act to discharge their professional duties. Findings in respect to this question revealed that even though journalists in Kogi State perceived that FOIA would enhance professionalism in media practice, they do not use the Act in carrying out their professional duties. This is linked to the common knowledge of the provision of the Act among the journalists and the belief that the Act may not function in Kogi State since it has not been domesticated in the state. This is in agreement with the findings of Oberiri (2016), which revealed that although FOIA can aid journalism practices towards fair, balanced, accurate and objective reporting, it has not created access to government-held information for journalists in Taraba State. Also, Dunu and Ugbo (2014) found out that Nigerian journalists understand and value the FOI Act as an investigative tool, but the Act is generally not often used by journalists.

It was found that none of the media organizations sampled had requested information based on the FOIA. This is similar to the findings of Yusuf (2015) on the Knowledge and Use of Freedom of Information Act among Journalists in North West, Nigeria. Yusuf found out that it was only Daily Trust, among other media organizations, which had applied for information based on the provisions of FOIA.

7.3. Challenges to the implementation of the act

The third research question seeks to investigate the challenges to the implementation of the Act among journalists in Kogi State. Findings in response to this question revealed that journalists in Kogi State had faced many challenges in implementing the Freedom of Information Act, one of which was common knowledge of the Act by the journalists. This has been a severe challenge to implementing FOIA in Nigeria, as revealed by many researchers. Yusuf (2015) identified ignorance of the content of the Freedom of Information Act as one of the hindrances to using the Act. It is least expected of a journalist with little or no knowledge of FOIA to use it to access information in government custody.

Another challenge, as revealed by the finding of this study, is that other laws hindering press-free access to information are still operational. This is true because we still have the Official Secrets Act, Evidence Act, the Public Complaints Commission Act, the Statistics Act and the Criminal Code, all aimed at suppressing the free flow of operational information. These laws affect the implementation of the Act as some mischievous public officers may use them for their selfish purposes. Oberiri (2017) noted that the continuous existence of anti-press laws aimed at suppressing the free flow of information would continue to affect the proper implementation of FOIA in Nigeria. Similarly, Oduah (2015, p.4) averred that “it is not yet Uhuru (over) for the Nigerian press, as their supposed freedom to ‘free access to and publication of information is still gagged and fettered not only by various successive governments of the day but, most pathetically, the same laws that ought to be the saviour”. In support of this finding, Enonche (2012) noted that the continued existence of these laws might affect the Act’s effectiveness in the long run as some mischievous public office holders can use some aspects of the laws for their selfish purposes.

The perception that the Act is not workable unless it is domesticated in Kogi State is also considered a challenge in the implementation of the Act among journalists in Kogi State. The respondents considered the issue surrounding its domestication before it was operational in a given state as a significant setback in implementing the Act. This is because there were reports of a court order in states like Lagos, Enugu, Katsina, Oyo and Benue that the Act does not apply to states until it is domesticated and passed to law by the State House of Assembly. Journalists in Kogi State considered this challenge to implementation of the Act as far as Kogi State is concerned. Yusuf (2015) also identified the unsettled issue of the domestication of the Act by states as a factor responsible for the non-utilization of FOIA in North West Nigeria.

The issue of widespread corruption and a high level of ignorance of the Act among the workforce in the public sector was also considered a challenge. This is also a significant setback to implementing the FOIA as no government of the day will freely allow the public to be aware of their callous policies and secret deeds.

Journalists on their part lack commitment to understanding the content of the Act and utilizing them in carrying out their professional responsibilities. This is so because 10 years after the bill establishing FOIA in Nigeria was passed into law, there was little commitment by the journalists to studying and using the Act. Only a few of the journalists (11 out of 48) took their time to study the Act even though the majority of them knew such a law existed, and only five out of the 48 journalists studied made an attempt to use the Act.

Also as identified by the respondents, is the unwillingness of public office holders to give out information. About this finding, Collins (2003) in Oberiri (2016) noted that a right to access officially held information would inevitably enhance good governance, transparency, accountability and people’s participation in government. However, the great fear is that public office holders may not want to divulge information capable of exposing their secret fraud.

The challenges in the implementation of FOI laws are not limited to only Nigeria. Most African countries are faced with one challenge or the other. Chidi and Max in Yusuf (2015, p. 37) noted that “although the legal texts vary from country to country, the problems confronting the implementation of FOI laws in various African countries are similar in many ways”. The authors identified technical capacity as a major constraint to the implementation of FOI laws on the continent. They noted that in some countries, such as Uganda, delays in the preparation of implementation regulations required by their respective access to information laws stalled the effective implementation of the law for nearly five years, until the regulations were eventually established by the government with the support of civil society actors in the countries.

8. Conclusions

There is no doubt in admitting that the freedom of information is an indispensable part of true democracy, which is seen as the system in which people have unrestricted access to the information contained in government records. In a working democratic system, citizens use their rights, that is, freedom of information, speech and expression, to criticize questionable government activities and express their rights to make political choices. This freedom of information and expression in many democratic and liberal states is considered a hallmark of open government, which shows a total practice of democracy. Journalists, considered the people’s mouthpiece, are expected to be acquainted with all that is contained in the Freedom of Information Act and strive towards its implementation to enable them to hold the government responsible and accountable at all times. This can only be made possible if they have adequate knowledge of the provisions of the Act and face little or no hindrances in its implementation. However, from the data analysed, it was found that journalists in Kogi State, even though they are aware of the existence of the Freedom of Information Act, have insufficient knowledge of its contents. Also, even though the journalists perceive an appreciable level of significance of the FOIA to media professionalism, they do not use it to access information. The low level of knowledge of the Act is not unconnected to the lack of training of journalists on the provision of the Act and the journalists’ poor reading culture. The no-usage of the Act is as well not unconnected to several challenges faced in the implementation of the Act, which includes insufficient knowledge of the content of the Act, unwillingness of public office holders to give out information, issues surrounding its domestication, high level of corruption and ignorance among the workforce in public sectors as well as the continued existence of other laws hindering free access to information. The freedom of the press as assumed by the Libertarian theory cannot be said to be fully operational in Kogi State, Nigeria, as revealed by the findings of this study. In a situation where journalists are still denied access to information by public office holders under the hoax that obnoxious anti-press laws are still operational despite the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, one can conclude that the assumptions of the libertarian theory are nothing but mirage in the state. It is therefore concluded that the successful implementation of the FOIA is the co-responsibility of both the journalists and the government.

9. Recommendations

The following recommendations are given based on the findings of the study:

1. Since it was found out that journalists in Kogi State lack adequate knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act, head of media houses and the government should organize a periodic or regular training and re-training of journalists to increase their level of knowledge of the Freedom of Information Act.

2. As the study discovered that journalists in Kogi State are usually not trained on the provision of FOIA, journalists themselves should increase their reading habits and get acquainted with the provisions of the Act, especially now that information is more available on the internet. They should not wait to be trained on everything that concerns them.

3. Most journalists in Kogi State attested that they had not seen a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; therefore, Nigerian government should made hard copies of the Act available to all registered journalists in Nigeria

4. Since it was also found that the leadership of the media organizations in Kogi State had done less in encouraging the use of the FOI Act, the media and civil right organizations should motivate journalists into learning more on the Act and encourage its usage among them.

5. Since the domestication of FOI Act among states of the federation has been considered a challenge to the effective implementation of the Act in Kogi State, the judiciary should resolve the issue and call for the review of the Act so that such can be captured in its content.

6. As the study found out that journalists in Kogi State are pessimistic about the workability of the Freedom of Information Act, journalists are advised to do away with their pessimistic views that the Act will not work and push for its full implementation considering the fact that they are one of the critical stakeholders in the implementation of the Act.

7. Since it was discovered that journalists in Kogi State do not use the FOI Act in carrying out their professional duties, media organizations should encourage the use of the Act among her workers by taking drastic measures against any public office holder who denies journalists their right to access to information under their custody.

Correction

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

James Dada Mohammed

James Dada Mohammed is a lecturer in the Department Mass Communication, Kogi State University, Anyigba. He specializes in Film, Information and Multimedia Studies, Print Journalism and Public Relations.

Olubunmi Fumilayo Agbana

Dr. Olubunmi Fumilayo Agbana is a senior lecturer in the department of Mass Communication, Kogi State University, Anyigba. She Specializes in Broadcasting, Film and Screen Writing, Information and Multimedia Studies and Journalism.

Fidelis Otebe

Dr. Fidelis Otebe is a senior lecturer in the department of Mass Communication. He specializes in broadcast journalism, Advertising and Media writing.

Victoria Anum

Dr. Victoria Anum is an Associate Professor in Mass Communication. She lectures in Kogi State University, Anyigba. She specializes in Videography, Broadcast journalism and Advertising.

Mohammed Shaibu Onakpa

Dr. Mohammed Shaibu Onakpa is a senior lecturer in Mass Communication, Kogi State University, Anyigba. He specializes in Advertising, Public Relations and Journalism.

Comfort Ajuma Ogwo

Dr. Comfort Ajuma Ogwo is a senior lecturer in the department of Mass Communication, Kogi State University, Anyigba. She specializes in Public Relations, Advertising and Broadcast journalism

APPENDIX I

Table A1. Selected Participants for the FGD

Rounds	Media Outlets	Participants
1	Radio Kogi, Lokoja	11
2	Grace FM, Lokoja	8
3	Confluence TV, Lokoja	6
4	NTA, Lokoja	9
5	Graphic Newspaper, Lokoja	8
6	Correspondence Chapel, Kogi state.	6
Total		48

Source: Field work, 2022

Table A2. Selected Participants for the FGD, Date and Venue

Rounds	Media Outlets	Participants	Date of FGD	Venue
1	Radio Kogi, Lokoja	11	21^st June, 2022	Station’s Newsroom
2	Grace FM, Lokoja	8	22^nd June, 2022	Station’s Newsroom
3	Prime FM, Jimbe	6	23^rd June, 2022	CTV Newsroom
4	NTA, Lokoja	9	24^th June, 2022	NTA Newsroom
5	Graphic Newspaper, Lokoja	8	25^th June, 2022	Confluence Room
6	Correspondence Chapel, Kogi state.	6	28^th June, 2022	NUJ Secretariat, Kogi

Source: Field work, 2022

Table A3. Selected Participants for the In-depth Interviews, Date and Venue

Rounds	Participants	Designation	Date of Interview	Venue
1	R1	Director of News, Radio Kogi, Lokoja	28^th June, 2022	Participant’s Office
2	R2	General Manager, Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	29^th June, 2022	Participant’s Office
3	R3	General Manager, NTA, Lokoja	28^th June, 2022	Participant’s Office
4	R4	Managing Director, Graphic Newspaper, Lokoja	29^th June, 2022	Participant’s Office
5	R5	NUJ Chairman, Kogi state and Manager, Prime FM, Jimbe	30^th June, 2022	Phone interview

Source: Field work, 2022

Table A4. Focus Group One (FGD1)

FGD LIST	ADDRESS	FGD GROUP	FGD CODE	GENDER
Participant one	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1A	Male
Participant two	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1B	Male
Participant three	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1C	Female
Participant four	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1D	Female
Participant five	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1E	Male
Participant six	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1F	Male
Participant seven	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1G	Male
Participant eight	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1H	Male
Participant nine	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1I	Male
Participant ten	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1J	Male
Participant eleven	Radio Kogi	Group 1	FGD1K	Male

Source: FGD 2022

Table A5. Focus Group Two (FGD2)

FGD LIST	ADDRESS	FGD GROUP	FGD CODE	GENDER
Participant one	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2A	Female
Participant two	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2B	Male
Participant three	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2C	Female
Participant four	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2D	Female
Participant five	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2E	Male
Participant six	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2F	Male
Participant seven	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2G	Male
Participant eight	Confluence Cable Network (Grace FM & Confluence TV)	Group 2	FGD2H	Male

Source: FGD 2022

Table A6. Focus Group Three (FGD3)

FGD LIST	ADDRESS	FGD GROUP	FGD CODE	GENDER
Participant one	Prime FM	Group 3	FGD3A	Male
Participant two	Prime FM	Group 3	FGD3B	Male
Participant three	Prime FM	Group 3	FGD3C	Male
Participant four	Prime FM	Group 3	FGD3D	Male
Participant five	Prime FM	Group 3	FGD3E	Female
Participant six	Prime FM	Group 3	FGD3F	Female

Source: FGD 2022

Table A7. Focus Group Four (FGD4)

FGD LIST	ADDRESS	FGD GROUP	FGD CODE	GENDER
Participant one	NTA	Group 4	FGD4A	Male
Participant two	NTA	Group 4	FGD4B	Male
Participant three	NTA	Group 4	FGD4C	Male
Participant four	NTA	Group 4	FGD4D	Male
Participant five	NTA	Group 4	FGD4E	Female
Participant six	NTA	Group 4	FGD4F	Male
Participant seven	NTA	Group 4	FGD4G	Male
Participant eight	NTA	Group 4	FGD4H	Female
Participant nine	NTA	Group 4	FGD4I	Female

Source: FGD 2022

Table A8. Focus Group Five (FGD5)

FGD LIST	ADDRESS	FGD GROUP	FGD CODE	GENDER
Participant one	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5A	Male
Participant two	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5B	Male
Participant three	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5C	Male
Participant four	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5D	Male
Participant five	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5E	Female
Participant six	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5F	Male
Participant seven	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5G	Male
Participant eight	Graphic Newspaper	Group 5	FGD5H	Female

Source: FGD 2022

Table A9. Focus Group Six (FGD6)

FGD LIST	ADDRESS	FGD GROUP	FGD CODE	GENDER
Participant one	Correspondence Chapel (Nation)	Group 6	FGD6A	Male
Participant two	Correspondence Chapel (Tribune)	Group 6	FGD6B	Male
Participant three	Correspondence Chapel (Daily Trust)	Group 6	FGD6C	Male
Participant four	Correspondence Chapel (Vanguard)	Group 6	FGD6D	Male
Participant five	Correspondence Chapel (Sun)	Group 6	FGD6E	Male
Participant six	Correspondence Chapel (ThisDay)	Group 6	FGD6F	Male

Source: FGD, 2022

Appendix

QUESTION GUIDE FOR THE FGDs

1. Do you know about the existence of a legal document that guarantees access to information held in government custody?

2. If yes, which Act is that?

3. Can you recall the processes it takes the bill to become a law?

4. Have you seen a copy of the Act before?

5. May we know how many sections the Act has?

6. Tell us what is contained in the Act

7. Have you ever attended any form of training on FOIA?

8. Have you ever taken time to study the Act?

9. Do you think the Act will enhance professionalism in journalism when fully implemented?

10. Have you ever applied for information based on the provision of the Act?

11. If yes, was the information given?

12. If No, Why?

13. What measure did you take when denied information using the Act?

14. Are you aware of the steps to be taken when denied information?

15. What are the steps?

16. Do you think the FOIA has any problem with its provisions or the procedures in using it?

17. What are the factors hindering the implementation of the Act in Kogi state?

18. What are your suggestions to tackling such challenges?

Appendix

QUESTION GUIDE FOR THE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW

1. What is your view of Freedom of Information Act and its implementation in Nigeria

2. Do you think the Freedom of Information Act will enhance professionalism in media practice?

3. What has your organization done to improve the knowledge of the provisions of the Act among journalists working under you?

4. Has your organization as a body requested for information using the FOIA?

5. How has your organization been encouraging the use of the Act among its staff?

6. Have you organized seminars or workshops to educate your staff on the use of the Act for journalism practice?

7. Have there been report of your staff being denied information?

8. What measure did your organization take?

9. What are the challenges of implementation of the Act in Kogi state

10. How do you think these challenges can be resolved?