In April 2014, our hearts broke when Boko Haram abducted 276 girls from the Government Secondary school in Chibok. One of the responses to this tragedy came from the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) who entered into a confidential contract with a foreign firm called Levick. Levick was contracted to provide the Nigerian Government counsel that would change the international and local media narrative related to the abduction of the Chibok girls. The contract was for a fee of 1.5 million Dollars for an initial period of 12 months. The fee excluded monthly administrative expenses and travel fees. When information on this contract was requested for, NAN refused disclosure, on grounds that the details of the contract were domiciled in the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA). The National Security Adviser did not respond to a request for the Levick contract. In spite of the inability to access the contract from NAN and the ONSA, the contract nevertheless became publicly available online through disclosure requirements in the United States where Levick is based.
The Levick contract was signed a year ago and although it is uncertain whether the contract was renewed, the circumstances around its public disclosure still illustrate our need for security sector accountability.
Section 11 of the Nigerian Freedom of Information Act, 2011 exempts from disclosure, information whose disclosure may be injurious to national defence except where an overriding public interest exists. So what would constitute “injury to National Defence”?
The scope of services in the Levick contract for example, states that Levick would provide
“Government affairs and communications counsel with the primary objective of changing the international and local media narrative related to the Government of Nigeria’s efforts to find and safely return more than 200 girls abducted by the terrorist organization, Boko Haram in the Borno state of Nigeria, Assisting the Government’s efforts to mobilize international support in fighting Boko Haram as part of the greater global war on terror and Communicating the President Goodluck Jonathan Administration’s past, present and future priority to foster transparency, democracy and the rule of law throughout Nigeria.”
In essence, the Levick contract is a public relations contract. The question is whether the disclosure of the information above is capable of causing any injury to National defence. Taking a cue from the Tshwane principles on Balancing National Security and the Right to Information, information that is held to be injurious must pose a real and identifiable risk of significant harm to a legitimate national security interest.
It is hard to see what the injury to National defense would be in the Levick contract. Granted, the 1.5 million US Dollar fee for the PR contract to Levick was significantly higher than the entire annual budget allocation to the Federal Government College in Potiskum; and may have been better utilized as an operational complement to the Safe School Initiative. This may have had a greater positive effect of changing the local and international media narrative surrounding the abduction of the Chibok school girls.
However, the fact that NAN negotiated a seemingly inequitable deal with Levick for public relations services that it should otherwise have provided does not make disclosure of the Levick contract “injurious” in the sense that it poses a real and significant risk to National defence.
In fact, the Levick contract raises an argument in favour of disclosure where knowledge that disclosure would apply is likely to enable the negotiation of better contracts that address the most crucial [National Defense and Security] needs.
On the assumption that the Levick contract was found to have some sensitive information that may injure national defence if disclosed, such injury still needs to outweigh the public interest in disclosing that information. Most would agree that it is in the public interest for basic information around efforts to rescue the Chibok girls and for plans to prevent further abductions to be known and this would seem to override any injury that may be caused by the disclosure of an expensive public relations contract. That is why when the Federal Government embarked on the safe school initiative, it was made public. It is therefore not clear, the grounds for withholding from public disclosure, even on request, the Levick contract.
A further admonition is that perception matters and it is best when official information on a matter of National security is first publicly released from our Defence sector rather than having the defence sector react to an unofficial disclosure. When the defence sector reacts to an unofficial disclosure, the reaction however accurate, is viewed with suspicion and this erodes public confidence. It would therefore be helpful to establish a mechanism for proactive disclosure within the Defence and security sector.
Finally, it is important for information around National Defence efforts, however obtained, to be seen as contributing to improved National security and this would require an integral system of public accountability. We are also expectant that these efforts would lead to the rescue of the abducted Chibok girls. Our Chibok girls are never to be forgotten.
This article is a contribution to the Security Sector Accountability Project implemented by Premium Times with support from OSIWA.
