Transparency in governance: A comparative study of right-to-information legislation in India,Indonesia and Nigeria

Abstract

This article discusses how the Right to Information Act in India, Nigeria and Indonesia can have an influence on ensuring transparency and accountability in the government system. The acts pertaining to the right to information in these three countries were implemented after long proceedings and deep struggles. The article looks at the legislation on the right to information in these three countries, the factors that motivated each of them to adopt the legislation, the implementation of the Right to Information Act, the challenges faced during the passage of the Act, the scope of coverage of the provisions of the Acts of all three countries, exceptions to the information disclosed to the public and problems faced during implementation from the government's side and the user's side. The article concludes with a summary of the arguments and key policy recommendations.

Keywords

accountability corruption disclosure government India Indonesia Nigeria Right to Information Act transparency

Introduction

A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. (Barry and Madison, 1822: 1)

Information is an inalienable right of every human being in a participatory democracy. The ability to seek, receive and circulate information is crucial to securing human rights, as are the right to hold public opinion, to seek and impart information and to have knowledge about all necessary aspects regarding the functioning of governmental activities. Information is the oxygen that every citizen needs in order to survive in society and to assert the right amount of democratic balance. The right to information and good governance are directly proportional. If citizens of a country have the right to information, it is an indicator of a healthy, accountable, transparent, responsive and democratic government. Factors like food, shelter, human security, environment and employment are all important components that link to the Right to Information. Delia Ferreira Rubio, chair of Transparency International, said in a report that:

Several of the countries assessed in the report have recently been rocked by corruption scandals involving senior officials and political leaders. Most continue to score poorly in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. A well-functioning right to information system is critical for exposing and deterring abuses of power, and for supporting the fight against corruption. (Transparency International, 2018)

The citizens of a country are empowered when they are given access to information since it enables them to fight injustice and ensures they are well-versed on their rights (Transparency International, 2018).

A government that lacks transparency fails to gain confidence from common people and therefore turns out to be failed government. Criminalisation and corruption become the features of the bureaucracy of a country that lacks transparency in government. Corruption in government and an ineffective administration are by-products of many transparency issues, including an ineffective Right to Information Act (Devasher, 2005). The level of efficacy and transparency that Nigeria, India and Indonesia have in their respective Right to Information (RTI) systems will be discussed in this article. Through the article, I aim to analyse the level of transparency that exists in the three countries in terms of the right to information and the implementation of the Act.

I will be looking at the cases of India, Indonesia and Nigeria in order to understand the root of the problem in these developing nations. These countries have a long history of struggle when it comes to transparency, and by looking at various issues one can find out how and why these countries introduced laws for transparency in information and what are the current underlying issues with them. By discussing the legislation on the right to information, the challenges faced during the legislation’s passage, the scope of its coverage and the exceptions and problems faced during implementation, one can draw parallels between the Right to Information Acts of all three countries, and can answer the following questions. Despite the implementation of the law, what are the loopholes? Where is the government lacking when it comes to providing transparent information to citizens? What are the problems faced by citizens, and how can they be resolved? The method of analysis is reference to feedback from different people on the right to information, official right-to-information portals, journal articles and government documents.

Transparency in governance and RTI: A framework of analysis

Motivated by the parliament's interest in accessing information held by the King, the first-ever RTI law was enacted by Sweden in 1766. That is when the need to disseminate information was felt in the international arena. Following Sweden's footsteps, laws for the right to information were enacted by the USA and Norway in 1966 and 1970, respectively. By the 1990s, 13 countries had enacted Freedom of Information laws, and by 2010 more than 85 countries had RTI laws or regulations (Lamble, 2002).

Transparency plays an inevitable role in ensuring good governance, and it helps to uphold accountability and deliver information to people about the government. Information provided and maintained by the Federal Government acts as a national asset. In a democratic country, if citizens are affected by any administrative decisions, they have the right to know the facts, figures, results and process that resulted in those decisions. Good governance can only be achieved when there is transparency in government, which implies that government officials act openly and citizens are aware of the decisions officials are making. Some of the key components of a transparent government are open information on government policies and actions, and assurance that the government is efficient and free of corruption.

There are two components of the democratisation of information. The first is that every person can obtain information since it enhances their lives and can help them make the best decisions based on the information available to them. The second is to build an information-driven society where citizens have access to all services and facilities with minimum bureaucratic and procedural formalities (Anderson and Rainie, 2020). Harnessing new technologies and updating the information which is of greatest use to the public should be the primary task of the executive departments and agencies. When it comes to transparency, the main aim of the government is not only to promote and ensure transparency and accountability in administration but also to make sure that people are involved in all governance matters, defining the true essence of democracy. There are a number of hindrances that occur in the flow of information to citizens, and various steps are taken by governments in order to usher in greater transparency. Interactive sessions with citizens must be conducted by government departments to understand their point of view and formulate policies accordingly; people should have access to budgetary reports; all government orders should be available on online portals; and white papers on all essential government matters should be published. The right to information is the master key to good governance, and both the terms are complementary to one another (Sharma, 2012).

Transparency is the key to good governance, and it essentially means that certain rules and regulations are followed when decisions are taken and enforced. The right to information serves as an instrument to bridge the gap between the administration and the people. The provision of the laws relating to the right to information can help to ensure transparency and accountability. It leads to empowerment of the people, by giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions when it comes to the decision-making process of the government. People can question, audit, review and examine the actions of the government. It also serves as the most effective instrument to check corruption by providing citizens with the right to seek information which in turn promotes openness, transparency and accountability in administration. The ultimate goal of providing information to citizens of a country should not be to threaten an official but to focus on seeking information for public welfare and interest (Kar, 2019). Accountability and transparency are only achievable when the public has access to information, and the Right to Information Act proselytises democratic ideology by promoting transparency in the administration.

Comparative analysis of three cases: India, Nigeria and Indonesia

Following the Swedish example of 1766 of recognising the need to disseminate information to the people by enacting the first RTI law in the international arena, in the 1960s many other countries across the world considered it essential and brought in laws regarding the same. While discussing the cases of India, Nigeria and Indonesia, one can look at the following parameters in order to develop a greater understanding of how the Right to Information Act came into being in these countries: legislation that looks at RTI; factors that motivated each country to adopt the legislation; challenges faced during passage; scope of coverage; exceptions; challenges faced during implementation by government and users.

RTI legislation

Transparency is a key issue in all forms of government. The right to transparency is a fundamental right and an absolute necessity in democracies across the world.

Traces of acknowledging the need of Indian citizens to have the right to information date back to the early 1970s. In 1975, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the people of India have a right to know and that it is a fundamental right. After various years of elections, governments being formed, making promises to bring in transparency laws and slow legislations, the Freedom of Information Act came into force in 2002, which was later replaced by the Right to Information Act of 2005 (still in effect), an act of the Parliament of India which sets out rules and procedures regarding citizens’ right to information (Singh, 2010). The Public Information Disclosure Act, 2008 of Indonesia came into force in 2010. However, the process of the adoption of the law began in 2000 as an initiative of the Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL) with the support of civil society organisations and individuals. The Act was adopted in 2008 and passed in 2010 mutually by the Parliament of the Republic of Indonesia and the President of Indonesia. This law obliges the government of Indonesia to provide its citizens with information regarding their operation (Government of Indonesia, 2008).

The clamour and agitation behind the passage of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) in Nigeria had been a lingering struggle by the Nigerian Union of Journalists, pressure groups and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, the Act was passed on 28 May 2011 by Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan who signed into law the Freedom of Information Act developed by the Freedom of Information Coalition. The Freedom of Information Act, 2011 is the legislature that governs the laws of the right to information in Nigeria. The passage of this Act proved to be an imperative milestone in the history of Nigerian journalism.

Drivers behind the RTI legislation

Before the promulgation of the Freedom of Information Act in Nigeria, there was no law provided by the government to its citizens giving them access to relevant information which would ensure transparency. Various secrecy clauses have always prohibited the disclosure of information in Nigeria. As a matter of fact, Nigerian officials also accepted and embraced the concept of secrecy in the political administration (Oghin, 2013). It had always been difficult to obtain access to any information from the government agencies. Finally, in 1993, due to the activities initiated by various civil rights organisations, the Freedom of Information Law for Nigeria gained popularity. It was deemed absolutely necessary in order to provide access to information pertaining to the documents that are in the custody of the government. In 1999, the FOI Bill was primarily submitted to Nigeria's fourth National Assembly, but its progress in the legislation was extremely dawdling. The Bill spent around 11 years in the legislative process before receiving presidential assent. Finally, on 28 May 2011, it was signed into law by Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan (Agba et al., 2018).

Observing this international pattern closely, the Indian judiciary took a step forward to strengthen the spirit of democracy. It was in the late 1990s and early 2000s that the demand for the Right to Information surged in India. It was an effect of the global environment movements of the 1990s that wanted more government transparency in matters relating to environmental degradation as a result of industrialisation. In India, though Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution indirectly guaranteed the right to know, this right was overshadowed by the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (Right to Information, 2021). Thus, the entire process of government functioning was shielded in secrecy. The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India endorsed that under a democratic setup, people have the right to know about the functioning of the government. There were many more decisions taken that lent weight to the argument that the right to information is a fundamental right of the people. All these judicial pronouncements led the Government of India to enact the Freedom of Information Act 2002. However, there were major restrictions on the Act that led to its ineffectiveness and thus did not do justice to providing transparent information to citizens. Therefore, this Act was replaced by the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Indonesia's law stipulates that the local press of the country has the right to seek, acquire and disseminate ideas and information, and must fulfil the public's right to know, which is a clear indicator that Indonesia has taken no direct steps to provide information to its public through official documents. As an outcome of issues in the field of communication, information and the mass media, the Public Disclosure Information Act (PIDA) was established in 2008. There was a strong urge to obtain the right to information as a human right and to considered its public disclosure a key feature of democracy. One major factor that led to the bringing in of this Act was the reformation movement ubiquitous in Indonesia, which changed the system of government from the ‘New Order’ to the ‘Reformation Order’. With the coming in of every political regime in the country since its independence in 1945, the right to information has been treated differently. When the New Order period was prevalent, the local press and mass media’s responsibility was towards the authorities and not the citizens. The freedom of the press was constrained to a point where they had no freedom. This can be deciphered from the fact that there was no public opinion that appeared to criticise the government. Any news opposing the government or its policies or behaviour was dealt with by threats and the revocation of business licences.

Even though the country has the law in force now, the provision of the Act still remains limited and has a long way to go (Napu, 2012). It was deemed a necessity when one looks at the reasons behind the bringing in of the laws and acts related to the right to information in Nigeria and India, especially due to the secrecy clauses being a hindrance in the process. While both of these countries, after years of tedious procedures, finally achieved success when it came to the implementation of the Act, in Indonesia the struggle still pertains. Despite the fact that the PIDA was brought into effect in the country in 2008, the disclosure of information is still restricted to journalists and media personnel, and there is no direct dissemination of information to citizens. The information that reaches citizens is often filtered due to government pressure, and any public opinion that criticises the government can lead to threats and cancellation of business licences.

Challenges faced during its passage

In India as well, the passage of the Information Act went through various hurdles due to the delay in its implementation as well as its inefficiency. In 1975, the Supreme Court of India ruled that citizens have the right to information. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to information is a fundamental right. In 1985, an Intervention Application was presented in the Supreme Court by environmental NGOs following the Bhopal Gas Tragedy asking for access to information pertaining to environmental hazards. In 1989, an election promise was made by the new coalition government to bring in a transparency law. In 1990, the government fell before the transparency law could be introduced. In 1996, the National Campaign for the People's Right to Information (NCPRI) was formed. NCPRI, along with other groups and movements and with the support of the Press Council of India, prepared and sent a draft RTI Bill.

In 1999, access to information was allowed by a cabinet ministry but the order was reversed by the Prime Minister. In 2000, a case was filed in the Supreme Court demanding the institutionalisation of the RTI and Shourie Committee Report was referred to the Parliamentary Committee. In 2001, the Parliamentary Committee gave its recommendations. In 2002, the Supreme Court gave a final ultimatum to the government in context of the right to information and following that, the Freedom of Information Act was passed in both houses of parliament. In 2003, the Freedom of Information Act obtained presidential assent but was not notified. In 2004, national elections were announced and the RTI Act was included in the manifesto of the Congress Party. In June 2004, the government set up a National Advisory Council under Sonia Gandhi. In August of same year, NCPRI had sent a draft bill to NAC, which was formulated in consultation with many groups and movements. A slightly modified version, along with some recommendations, was sent to the government.

In December 2004, the RTI Bill was introduced in parliament and immediately referred to a Parliamentary Committee but was only applicable to the central government. Between January and April 2005, the Bill was considered by the Parliamentary Committee and the Council of Ministers and thus, a revised Bill which included both central and state governments was introduced in parliament. In May 2005, the RTI Bill was passed in both houses of parliament, and in June 2005 it obtained the assent of the President of India. Finally, after years of long struggle, the RTI Act came into force in October 2005.

One of the major reasons for exercising the right to disclosure of information to the public has been to fight corruption. This has become an inevitable part of democracies across the world, especially for developing countries, particularly those undergoing transformation from an authoritarian to a democratic form of government (Mander and Joshi, 2000). This regulation plays a crucial role in Indonesia since it is a sign of the country's process of shifting to a democratic form of government, as a transition phase from the authoritarian government in the previous 32 years before the implementation of Indonesia's Public Information Disclosure Act of 2010. The Act was adopted in 2008 and came into force two years later. However, the process of the adoption of this law began in 2000 at the initiative of the Indonesian Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL) and was supported by a coalition of approximately 40 civil society organisations and individuals. A draft law was created by the coalition in 2002, from which the draft legislation was developed by the Parliamentary Special Committee and sent to then President Megawati Sukarnoputri. The procedure was slow, and negotiations halted for several years until resuming in 2005. However, even after its passage and implementation, some government institutions still consider that the information they have is confidential and is not supposed to be accessed by the public, and thus, some cases have remained unresolved for extended periods.

Nigerian public servants were used to the entrenched culture of maintaining secrecy in both the civil and political administration. Thus, obtaining information from any government agency was a very tedious process, as good as impossible. In Nigeria, the first FOI Bill was first submitted to Nigeria's fourth National Assembly in 1999 but its process in the legislation was extremely slow (Anyanwu et al., 2013). Before receiving presidential assent, the law spent over 11 years in the legislative process. The biggest obstacle were the secrecy clauses prohibiting the disclosure of information. The Official Secrecy Act prohibits the unauthorised transmission of any information which has been classified by any government branch as being prejudicial to the security of Nigeria. This Act has had such a deep embedded effect on the civil servants of Nigeria that it faced various delays while passing, which became a big challenge and to an extent it remains an issue (Ekwe and Mbadugha, 2018).

The journey to obtaining the right to information in all three countries has been tedious, long, rigorous and monotonous. The secrecy clauses have always been a hindrance in the passage of the Acts and continue to be an obstruction since it is extremely difficult to draw a line between what can be revealed and what cannot. The governments sometimes take advantage of this and thus maintain confidentiality in a lot of areas of importance which ultimately defeats the purpose of the Act, which is ensuring transparency in government and getting rid of corruption. Confidentiality and too much secrecy are a major issue in all three countries, and were a challenge in the Acts’ implementation.

Scope of coverage

While the implementation in RTI being called a water-shed moment in the history of public governance since its independence, it has a long way to go (Roberts, 2010). In the case of India, the largest democracy in the world and thus a country where there should be free and easy access to information for its citizens in the form of press releases, conferences and direct interviews, there still remains ambiguity in RTI. Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 impose unnecessary restrictions on making available offline information as evidence (Online RTI, 2005). This Act is also designed in accordance with the state levels. Different states have different rules and regulations, which in turn creates a lot of ambiguity.

When one looks at the Indonesia Public Information Disclosure Act of 2008, it is quite restricted. The loophole that one can observe in the right to information being provided to citizens is that the Indonesian law stipulates that the domestic press has the right to seek, acquire and disseminate information and ideas and must fulfil the public's right to know. The problem with this is that the country believes it is the duty of the domestic press to disseminate information, which shows that the government authorities are not playing a direct role in providing information through press releases, direct interviews or publicly displaying bills. The information is disseminated through the government. Now while the right to information is deemed inevitable in democratic countries, the question that arises is: is providing information to the public only through the domestic press of the country authentic? Does the government manipulate the information that is being provided to the citizens of the country? The whole purpose of eradicating corruption from a country by providing access to information to its citizens is defeated in such a case since no one would ever find out if there is authenticity and no manipulation involved behind the information being given to the people of a country (Government of Indonesia, 2008).

As far as the scope of coverage in terms of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 in Nigeria is concerned, it aims to make public records and information more accessible while also protecting the personal privacy of people. It also protects serving public officers in case of any adverse consequences arising from the unauthorised disclosure of certain kinds of official information. The Act also aims to keep a check on the conflicts that arise between provisions and enactments that create a link between criminal activities and the disclosure of information. It also states that the people of the country have the power to hold the government accountable in case of misappropriation of public funds. Observations prove that the biggest obstacle has always been the number of exemption sections and clauses surpassing the sections that grant access to information. For instance, only Sections 1 and 3 grant the freedom of access to information to the public but as many as 10 sections deny the access of information to the public (Government of Nigeria, 2011). However, it is stated by the omnibus clause that stands against the ‘denial of information’ being provided to the public that, in situations where providing information to the public will be in good faith and for the betterment of citizens as a whole, these records shall be made available to them, and the exemption to disclosure shall not apply.

There are certain provisions in the Acts of all three countries that have details about the kind of information they are supposed to provide to the general masses, taking into consideration that private information about a person is not released and that the information provided does not have any security implications to the country. Thus, the scope of coverage remains extremely low in Indonesia as compared to in Nigeria and India.

Exceptions

Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, India lists some exceptions to the information disclosed to citizens under the law, i.e. information that could affect the security, sovereignty and integrity of India; information that constitutes contempt of court; information that includes trade secrets or intellectual property; information received in confidence from foreign governments; and information hazardous to the physical safety of an individual (Hans India, 2017). The Act involves a few more parts that state the exemptions. However, it is important to note that there are some circumstances under which the information should be disclosed to an individual despite the exemptions. These are: (a) the Public Information Officer (PIO), at all times, should tell you in the notice if the information is covered by a legitimate exemption and should respond through the notice by mentioning the particular exemption; (b) if the disclosure can cause substantial harm; (c) if the harm that could be caused is greater than the public interest in disclosure (Government of India, 2005). While the RTI Act makes it compulsory for the government to disclose 17 types of information, not even 10 percent of it has been achieved said the Chief Information Commissioner Mishra (New Indian Express, 2011).

The exemptions for the Public Information Disclosure Act, 2008 of Indonesia are provided for under Articles 17 and 18, which provide various parts and subsections that state the conditions under which citizens can be denied access to information. One is any kind of information that could hinder the process of law enforcement (obstructing the investigation procedure of a criminal act, disclosing intelligence data about a criminal, jeopardising the life and safety of a law enforcement officer etc.); information disseminated to the public that may disrupt the protection of the right to intellectual property; information that could be hazardous to the defence and security of the state; information revealing the natural wealth of Indonesia; information harmful to economic security; and information that can be problematic for the diplomatic relations of the country (Government of Indonesia, 2008). There are a few more sections and subsections to the Articles that provide for the protection of information in the national interest.

The Freedom of Information Act of Nigeria recognises some legitimate exceptions in case providing the information could be harmful to the country. There are a few instances where information is not provided to citizens: if the information could be harmful to the international affairs or defence of the country (however the refusal of this would not be taken into consideration if there is a larger damage that could be caused by not disclosing the information in the public interest); if there is unwarranted interference in the administration of justice, but yet again this is subject to public interest; and any kind of personal or third-party information cannot be provided under the law, notwithstanding a case where the information is outweighed by public interest (Government of Nigeria, 2011). A matter of interest is that the Nigerian Act does not define what the term ‘public interest’ incorporates, and thus it makes the law somewhat inefficient and leaves the rights of citizens in a grey area. Another problematic area is that the act does not specify who is eligible to access information from the government (Ayuba et al., 2011).

Implementation changes

There are some inherent challenges, despite the implementation of the FOI Act in Nigeria. The exemptions that are provided for, under law, are sometimes abused by public officers for their own self-interest. Also, only Sections 1 and 3 of the Act provide for the access of information, while 10 sections deny access. Most importantly, throughout the Act, the term ‘public interest’ has been used without a clear definition. Challenges in implementing the law have two sides: one is the challenges faced by government, the other is the challenges faced on the user’s side.

When one looks at the user's side, one of the biggest challenges is the low literacy rate in Nigeria. Roughly 70% of Nigerians are illiterate and without effective education. The Act is therefore less efficient since it is difficult for the general masses to understand it and to realise its importance for ensuring transparency. Another big challenge is THE Low level of public awareness of the Act. The problem underlying this is that most Nigerians are unable to connect the dots between the FOI Act and their daily struggles to earn a living. They do not consider it as a primary issue and, therefore, do not pay heed to it. Even among the literate, awareness about the law is extremely minimal.

From the government's side, one of the issues is poor recordkeeping and infrastructure. The recordkeeping, organisation and maintenance of documents is inadequate, and the biggest problem is that in most Nigerian ministries recordkeeping is still manual. The provision of the FOI Act becomes ineffective because of the poor quality of records and lack of proper access. The server for the websites that provide information is ineffective, and there are very few portals that actually work well. As well as this, there are subsisting laws that conflict with the FOI Act. These laws include the Official Secrets Act, the Evidence Act, the Criminal Code and the Penal Code. They are extremely old and do not hold much relevance nowadays. The implementation of the FOI Law can only be effective if these laws are amended (Agarwal, 2020).

A similar set of implementation difficulties can be seen in the Right to Information Act of India. On the demand side, there is low public awareness among citizens, there are constraints faced by people in filing applications, the quality of information provided to people is poor and often people are met with excuses for keeping information confidential. On the other hand, some pertinent issues faced on the government's side are that the administration fails to provide information in the stipulated 30 days, there is a lack of basic infrastructure and, above all, there is lack of motivation on the side of PIOs to provide timely and accurate information. This is where the ineffective implementation of Section 4(1) (b) comes in, which states that it is the basic responsibility of the public authority to disseminate information to the public on a suo moto basis, which they fail to do and thus the implementation of the law becomes ambiguous.

A study conducted in the UK concerning open government data shows that there are approximately 40 barriers to the implementation of the Public Information Disclosure Act of Indonesia, some of them being incomplete data in government, data misuse and poor quality of data provided by the government. The large number of disputes that occur between public agencies and applicants adds to the existing barriers. Budget, infrastructure, human resources and environment are other factors that add to the problem. In many cases, people are denied access to information using the excuse of Article 17 of exempt information. These are the problems observed from the side of the government. However, when one looks at the difficulties being faced on the user's side, it can be observed that one issue that remains common in all these countries is the unfamiliarity and lack of enthusiasm of people to utilise the right to information. In Indonesia as well, they are not accustomed to following the long bureaucratic procedures involved in seeking information; in addition, some people fear asking for information from the government authorities even if it is for legitimate purposes (Napu, 2012).

After observing all three cases, one can decipher that even after years of struggle of bringing these laws into effect, the underlying problems when it comes to effective implementation of the laws remain the same: poor infrastructure, ineffective PIOs, delayed responses and low levels of public awareness. However, not providing information on the name of ‘exemptions’ is one of the biggest issues. As mentioned above, according to data, Indonesia has approximately 40 barriers to the implementation of the Act, which makes it worse than India and Nigeria. However, when one looks at Nigeria, it lacks public facilities and has some serious hardships for people due to misappropriation of funds meant for public facilities by public officials. The presence of corruption in every sector of the Nigerian government has tied Nigerians into a vicious circle of poverty. This vicious cycle cannot be eradicated until proper measures are taken in order to reduce the income gaps among the people of the country.

The Freedom of Information Act has also failed to serve its purpose, largely because in order to have successful implementation of laws, the priority is to delve deep into the roots of the problem. As long as corruption is not eradicated, starting from the sectors that work for the basic facilities of people, the implementation of laws like RTI become extremely tedious and far-fetched. Therefore, eradication of corruption is a necessity in order to ensure the implementation of RTI is successful.

An effective democratic system and transparency

I strongly believe that the ‘form of government’ in a country has an immense role to play in ensuring transparency in a country. It is vital to pay attention to the fact that the nature of the political system in all three countries also has a major role to play in the scale of transparency present in the governments and their RTI systems. One can observe throughout the analysis made so far that India and Indonesia are better off in terms of transparency as compared to Nigeria. The point of difference is that while India has a parliamentary form of government and the people of the country know exactly who to vote for, since Indonesia has a presidential form of government, even before the president is sworn in after elections, the opposition tries all means to show their force in controlling legislation and to hamper the executives’ policies (Wirawan, 2014).

A democratic form of government is deemed essential in order to ensure there is less corruption and more accountability in a country. While India and Indonesia are both democracies, the difference lies in the two countries being a parliamentary and a presidential form of government respectively and the loopholes of being a presidential form of government instead of a parliamentary form are evident in the example given above. Corruption in Nigeria, despite being a democratic country, can be termed a ‘social virus’ which is an amalgamation of the features of fraudulent anti-social behaviour derived from British colonial rule and those derived from and nurtured in the indigenous Nigerian context (Osoba, 1996). There are inequitable structures of a dependent neo-colonial state being allowed to reproduce in all generations, for a bourgeoisie of politicians and bureaucrats. The reason for this is maximisation of their consumption of luxuries so much so that even formal institutions like the Public Complaint Commission, RTI Tribunal, Code of Conduct Bureau fail to have an impact on the problem.

The patron–client relationship, commonly known as ‘Godfatherism’, is a common practice in Nigeria (Ejikeme, 2006). This includes the practice of exchanging political and economic favours between patrons (political leader) and their clients (close associates) which has always been associated with corruption. Even in the case of elections, party leaders extort money from candidates by threatening to remove their names from the party list and, in addition, many of these politicians before the elections have little or moderate income but once they get elected they become very rich. All these practices also stem largely from the huge income gaps in Nigerian society. This tempts low-income people to accumulate money and become wealthier through fraudulent means. I do not mean to glorify the transparency of government in India; in fact it does have a lot of corruption, especially when it comes to practices like the spoil/patronage system (similar to the patron–client system in Nigeria) where government jobs are provided by the winning political party for its supporters and friends. A lack of transparency in elections and accepting bribery are a common practice. The only difference is in the scale of the problem in these countries. Such practices contribute to problems like increased corruption and decreased accountability.

However, I am trying to prove how India holds a better rank in the Transparency Index, as compared to Indonesia and Nigeria (despite the fact that all three countries are democratic) largely because of the existence of a parliamentary form of government in India as compared to presidential forms of government in Nigeria and Indonesia. A parliamentary form of government has better coordination between the executive and the legislature since the executive is a part of the legislature. Since the majority of the legislature supports the government, it is easier to pass and implement laws. Therefore, in order to ensure that laws like RTI are successful in a developing nation, a parliamentary form of government is a better option than a presidential one. Countries that do not have a democratic form of regime like Nicaragua and North Korea rank 169 and 174 out of 180 respectively in the Corruption Perception Index of 2021. This is not always the case, and even democratic regimes can lack transparency; South Sudan is a good example of this, ranking 180/180 in the Corruption Perception Index. Nevertheless, the stability of government, the formation of a country, historical perceptions and the quality and standard of living also play a big role in the huge levels of corruption in Nigeria. It can be observed how so much internal political turmoil can contribute to less accountability and more corruption in governments, making them less transparent, and when that is the case, it does not matter whether the country is a democracy or not.

However, in context of this article, it is inevitable to have a democratic setup since it is only through a democratic regime that people can have access to information which gives them the ability to question, review and examine the decisions taken and policies being brought out by the government. People can have a say in what is being decided for the society as a whole in order to develop a mutual understanding between the citizens and the respective government. As discussed before, the ultimate goal of providing information to the citizens of the country should not be to threaten an official but to focus on seeking information for public welfare and interest (Kar, 2019). In a monarchical setup, where people do not have a say, it is not a two-way stream. Citizens abide by what has been provided to them and there is no opportunity to check what the government has been doing or the loopholes in the system or to review or question the government's decisions. The sole purpose of having a democratic regime that also works smoothly is that accountability by the government can be maintained and people can have a say in government proceedings. In fact, studies have also proven how corruption can affect the economic systems of a country- in this case, India and Nigeria and thus strong institutions become a necesiity (Obamuyi and Olayiwola, 2019). However, in the three cases discussed in this article, it will take some time to perfectly implement the smooth functioning of the RTI Acts mainly because some amendments need to be made in the roots of the system, more development is required for unhindered operation and some motivation should be brought in for people to not get involved in corrupt practices.

Conclusion

After observing India, Indonesia and Nigeria’s journeys towards implementation of the Right to Information Act, one can see that the analysis has been based on a few parameters, namely: legislation looking at RTI, factors that motivated each country to adopt the legislation, challenges faced during implementation, exceptions to the Act and the problems faced from both the government's and user’s side. After looking at all the parameters, it can be observed that there is no effective implementation of the Act in any of the three countries. There are various factors that support the argument as to how a lack of transparency and corruption can have an adverse effect on the implementation of laws in a country. The two major reasons that can be observed through the arguments made in this article are: a difference in the democratic systems (parliamentary vs presidential); and the people’s lack of voice to confront loopholes in the existing government policies. In addition, factors like living standards and poor economic conditions can also contribute. The journey to implementation of the Act has been different in each of these countries, but the end result is more or less the same. One observation on this could be the nature of the government in these countries. These countries had a long and tedious journey towards implementation of the law, and despite the law coming into play, the implementation is ineffective and inefficient due to a lot of ambiguity and also because of the secrecy laws and one should pay attention to the fact while some secrets are in public interest, most of them end up being for private interest and that is where the problem (Bredin, 2001). The governments of the countries are not willing to invest money in the basic requirements needed for the efficiency of the law, and the poor recordkeeping and infrastructure also contribute. The PIOs are laidback and lack efficiency in their work which leads to slow procedures, and thus the process does not remain timely and rapid. It was also found that the public awareness and literacy levels in these countries are low, which prevents people from even filing an RTI. These countries have a majority of middle-income classes, and thus it becomes prevalent that getting into these long, tedious procedures is not their main priority since their main focus always remains on earning more and staying away from these cumbersome processes.

Contextualising this article in terms of the framework of analysis, there are two vital components of the democratisation of information: every citizen of a country gets information, and all citizens have access to services and facilities at ease. When one looks at the three cases, it is found that the underlying principle—when it comes to transparency, the main aim of the government is not only to promote and ensure transparency and accountability but also to make sure that people are involved in governance—is somewhat absent. This has been substantiated in the article as to how the high number of exceptions in their frameworks, lack of adequate infrastructure and lack of motivation among people (due to low literacy rates and other factors discussed above) contribute to the loss of essence of these Acts. Having an Act implemented in a country is not enough and it becomes redundant and purposeless if it does not fulfil its aims and principles. It is important to note that if the chances of user participation can be expanded then the change from administration to great administration is acheivable (Bafna, 2019).

Through this article, it can be observed that Nigeria, India and Indonesia have had a tedious journey in implementing the laws pertaining to the right to information. Despite implementing Acts that give citizens access to information, it was observed that there were some loopholes in the effective implementation of the laws. These loopholes have been observed from both the side of the user and the side of the government. The most basic issue from the side of the user is a lack of awareness about the law and not considering it important in their day-to-day lives. People also feel the process is too tedious and therefore do not pay heed to it. In order to deal with this issue, the first step that should be taken by the government is to conduct various free seminars for people and educate them on the subject while ensuring that the procedure of filing RTI request is simple and quick. In order to do so, some changes need to be made on the government's side too. Policymakers should get a better understanding of how misinformation spreads and who it affects (Vogus and Llanso, 2021). The government should take inspiration from the countries with the most effective RTI systems in the world, which are extremely transparent. One pertinent example could be New Zealand. New Zealand has been labelled as the least corrupt country in the world, while India, Indonesia and Nigeria rank at 85, 96 and 154 respectively (Corruption Perception Index, 2021). An interesting observation that can be made here is that while India and Indonesia have seen a marginal drop in rank compared to 2020 (India's rank being 86 and Indonesia's rank being 102 in 2020), the condition in Nigeria has only worsened since it jumped from 149 in 2020 to 154 in 2021 (Corruption Perception Index, 2020). The New Zealand Official Information Act is extremely effective and could be taken as inspiration for these countries. Despite the population, demography and political system of these countries being extremely different, working towards a more effective institution and system is something all nations should incorporate. One can observe that the implementation of the Information Acts in India, Nigeria and Indonesia is extremely ambiguous. If one compares India to New Zealand in terms of ambiguity, it is clear that India's law is not effective because it has information laws and portals at both state and national level, whereas New Zealand has a well-defined Act that provides a lot of clarity with absolutely no ambiguity. It is clear from this article that due to poor administration, these countries usually fail to provide information in the stipulated time period. This is one reason that the system is ineffective; therefore, it is important to have a proper administrative system with well-educated and dedicated PIOs. While New Zealand and other countries with efficient Information Acts provide proper reasoning in the case that they cannot provide information to users due to privacy issues, the list of exemptions as provided for in the Acts of India, Nigeria and Indonesia is extremely long and not well defined. It is extremely obscure and causes serious hindrances to the implementation of the laws. A lack of basic infrastructure when it comes to RTI offices remains a pertinent issue that leads to ineffective procedural systems. Lastly, while information should be disseminated on a suo moto basis like it is in New Zealand, this remains an issue in the countries discussed in this article. If one looks at India, there is an ineffective implementation of Section 4(1)(b) of RTI, which creates huge gaps.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hanspreet Kaur

References

Agarwal

(2020) Key issues and constraints in implementation of RTI Act, 2005. Available at: http://racolblegal.com/key-issues-and-constraints-in-implementation-of-rti-act-2005/#:∼:text=The%20Article%20highlights%20the%20discrepancies,of%20Public%20Information%20Officers%20and (accessed 10 September 2021).

Agba

Ogri

Adomi

(2018) The Nigerian Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and the right to know: Bridging the gap between principle and practice. IISTE: 73: 1–4.

Anderson

Rainie

(2020) Concerns about democracy in the digital age. Report, Pew Research Centre, USA.

Anyanwu

Akawnwu

Ossai-Onah

(2013) Freedom of Information Bill: Its relevance and challenges in national development: The Nigerian experience. Library Philosophy and Practice: 7.

Ayuba A, Yahaya M, Bulamu K and Ibrahim D (2011) Nigeria freedom of information act 2011 and its implication for records and office security management. pp. 6. http://www.ipedr.com/vol21/16-ICIF2011-F10011.pdf

Bafna

(2019) Right to Information Act (RTI ACT 2005): A perspective study on government employees of India. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences 7(3–4): 55–62.

Barry

Madison

(1822) James Madison to W. T. Barry, August 4. August 4. [Manuscript] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/mjm018999/.

Bredin

(2001) Secrecy, transparency and democracy. Pouvoirs: 5–15.

Devasher

(2005) E-governance as a tool to implement right to information. Conflux 2005: The E-Government Conference, New Delhi, 17–19 October 2005.

10.

Ejikeme

(2006) Political corruption and poverty in Nigerian democratic state: Any grounds for justification? Master’s thesis, Linköpings Universitet, Sweden.

11.

Ekwe

Mbadugha

(2018) Obstacles to the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 in Nigeria. African Journals Online 9: 1–2.

12.

Government of India (2005) Right to Information Act 2005. Available at: https://rti.gov.in/rtiact.asp (accessed 4 December 2021).

13.

Government of Indonesia (2008) Public Information Disclosure Act 2010. Available at: https://publicofficialsfinancialdisclosure.worldbank.org/sites/fdl/files/assets/law-library-files/Indonesia_Public_Information_Disclosure_Act_2008_EN.pdf (accessed 28 Novermber 2021).

14.

Government of Nigeria (2011) Freedom of Information Act 201l. Available at: https://www.cbn.gov.ng/foi/freedom%20of%20information%20act.pdf1 (accessed 2 October 2021).

15.

Hans India (2017) RTI exemptions. Available at: https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hans-Classroom/2017-08-29/RTI-exemptions/322394?infinitescroll=1 (accessed 3 August 2021).

16.

Henninger

(2013) The value and challenges of public sector information. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal.

17.

Kar

(2019) ‘Right to information’ a helping hand of transparent government . Dissertation, Lovely Professional University, India.

18.

Lamble

(2002) Freedom of information, a Finnish clergyman's gift to democracy. Freedom of Information Review, Copyright Agency (97): 2–3. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20021548

19.

Mander

Joshi

(2000) The movement for right to information. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Available at: https://mib.gov.in/ (accessed 28 September 2021).

20.

Napu

(2012) Towards a better regulation of Indonesia’s public access to information . Master’s thesis, Tilburg University, Netherlands.

21.

New Indian Express (2011) RTI can ensure transparency. 13 February, p. 11.

22.

Obamuyi

Olayiwola

(2019) Corruption and economic growth in India and Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Management 35(1): 80–105.

23.

Oghin

(2013) Corruption in the matrix of development in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, ESJ: 9(7). DOI: 10.19044/esj.2013.v9n7p%p.

24.

Online RTI (2005) Beginner’s guide to Right to Information Act, 2005. Available at: https://onlinerti.com/about-rti (accessed 24 September 2021).

25.

Osoba

(1996) Corruption in Nigeria: Historical perspectives. Review of African Political Economy 23(69): 371–386.

26.

Right to Information (2021) A citizen gateway. Available at: https://rti.gov.in/ (accessed September 2021).

27.

Roberts

(2010) A great and revolutionary law? The first four years of India’s Right to Information Act. Public Administration Review 60: 1–3.

28.

Sharma

(2012) The Right to Information Act in India: The turbid world of transparency reforms . PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

29.

Singh

(2010) The genesis and evolution of the right to information regime in India. Country paper India Regional Workshop Towards More Open and Transparent Governance in South Asia, Indian Institute of Public Administration, India.

30.

Transparency International (2018) Right to Information Knowledge is Power. Transparency International. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/en/news/right-to-information-knowledge-is-power

31.

Transparency International (2020) Corruption Perception Index (2020). Available at: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020 (accessed July 2021).

32.

Transparency International (2021) Corruption Perception Index (2021). Available at: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 (accessed January 2022).

33.

UNESCO (2008) Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_information_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf (accessed December, 2021).

34.

Vogus

Llansó

(2021) Making transparency meaningful: A framework for policymakers. Centre for Democracy and Technology. Available at: https://cdt.org/insights/report-making-transparency-meaningful-a-framework-for-policymakers/ (accessed February 2021).

35.

Wirawan

(2014) Your letters: Democracy in India and Indonesia. The Jakarta Post. Available at: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/06/your-letters-democracy-india-and-indonesia.html (accessed 2 June, 2022).