Authored By: Eunice Dyep Bulus
Philomath University Abuja
ABSTRACT
This article conducts a comparative legal analysis of Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act, 2011, and India’s Right to Information Act, 2005, exploring their historical development, legislative frameworks, implementation mechanisms, and jurisprudential evolution. Drawing from case law, statutory interpretation, and global best practices, it highlights how India’s institutional design, public awareness, and judicial activism have strengthened transparency and accountability, while Nigeria’s FOIA continues to struggle with enforcement, compliance, and awareness. Using a doctrinal and comparative methodology, this study concludes with targeted recommendations for reforming Nigeria’s FOIA, proposing the establishment of independent information commissions, enhanced public interest overrides, and integration of digital access mechanisms. The article underscores the role of freedom of information as a pillar of democratic governance and a critical enabler of Sustainable Development Goal 16.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Overview of Freedom of Information Acts
- Comparative Analysis and Recommendations
- Conclusion
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Freedom of Information (FOI) laws are crucial for enhancing modern democratic governance by granting individuals access to public records, thereby ensuring accountability of authorities. These laws play a significant role in promoting transparency, fighting corruption, and facilitating citizen participation, all in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda. The development of the right to information in Nigeria and India has been shaped by distinct historical trajectories influenced by their colonial legacies, civil society activism, and interpretations of constitutional principles1. Nigeria’s adoption of the FOIA represents a shift from a culture of secrecy, exemplified by the Official Secrets Act of 1962, towards a more open government system. Despite initial resistance due to concerns over national security and entrenched bureaucratic practices, Nigeria successfully passed the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in 2011, marking a significant milestone in its pursuit of transparency2.
In contrast, India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, established in 2005, emerged from grassroots activism that demanded accountability and citizen engagement. The movement, spearheaded by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in rural Rajasthan in 1994, focused on securing access to information on development initiatives and fair wages for laborers. India’s RTI Act owes its existence to MKSS and its innovative approach, including “Jan Sunwais” (public hearings), which exposed corruption and underscored the transformative power of information accessibility. This comparative analysis evaluates the effectiveness of the legal frameworks in both countries, identifies institutional and structural weaknesses, and proposes strategies to enhance transparency in Nigeria. By examining the design, interpretation, and implementation of the FOIA and RTI Acts, this study draws on India’s successful experiences to recommend practical enhancements for Nigeria. The research methodology involves a legal research approach that emphasizes doctrine and comparison, utilizing primary sources such as the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 (Nigeria), and the Right to Information Act, 2005 (India), in conjunction with constitutional provisions, legal precedents, and government policies. Secondary sources include academic papers and reports from reputable organizations like UNESCO and Transparency International. Through a comprehensive examination of how these laws are enforced, interpreted, and applied in both nations, this study aims to distill key lessons and best practices to inform reform initiatives.3
2.0 OVERVIEW OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 NIGERIA’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides all individuals with the opportunity to obtain public records maintained by governmental bodies, representing a departure from laws emphasizing secrecy, such as the Official Secrets Act, thereby empowering Section 39 of the CFRN. The scope of FOIA encompasses all branches of government, including ministries, agencies, and parastatals, with the exception of inconsistent state-level
enforcement. While the Act has received accolades for its alignment with global norms like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, it has also faced criticism for loopholes exploited by public officials. Notably, Nigeria’s FOIA was evaluated by UNESCO in 2015, scoring 78 out of 150 points in the Global Right to Information Rating. This assessment highlights strengths in accessibility but weaknesses in enforcement penalties and public awareness initiatives. The country’s FOIA, by providing citizens with the right to request information from public entities, stipulates a swift response timeframe of seven days. It also mandates proactive disclosure, requires the publication of specific information by public institutions (e.g., budgets, policies), sets a deadline for responses to inquiries, specifies exemptions (e.g., national security, personal privacy), and establishes procedures for appeals to the Attorney General and judicial review.4.
2.2 INDIA’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT (RTI)
India’s RTI was enacted on June 15, 2005, and brought into force on October 12 of the same year, India’s Right to Information Act empowers any person to demand records from public authorities at the central, state, and local levels. By interpreting the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) to include a “right to know,” it has become a global benchmark for transparency, handling more than six million requests annually through the Central Information Commission. The law has unearthed corruption in areas ranging from education to defense, though its effectiveness is sometimes hampered by bureaucratic delays and threats against activists. Its decentralized design and focus on accountability are widely praised, even as the 2019 amendments seen by many as undermining the autonomy of Information Commissions have attracted significant criticism.5
At its core, the Act requires proactive disclosure of seventeen categories of information (Section 4) and obliges designated Public Information Officers to respond within thirty days or within forty-eight hours when life or liberty is at stake (Sections 5–7). It spells out specific exemptions, including matters of sovereignty and trade secrets, but allows
these to be overridden in the public interest (Section 8). Appeals can be made to independent Information Commissions at both central and state levels, which are empowered to levy fines of up to ₹25,000 on officials who cause unjustified delays or denials (Sections 12–20). These mechanisms collectively reinforce the Act’s aim of fostering an accountable, citizen-centric government6.
3.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has struggled in areas where India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act has flourished particularly in enforcement and public awareness. In Nigeria, appeals are routed through the executive branch, creating risks of bias, whereas India relies on independent commissions insulated from political influence. The contrast is stark in usage: while India processes millions of requests annually, Nigeria records fewer than a thousand per year, reflecting weak implementation. The absence of penalties for noncompliance further undermines FOIA, unlike India’s system of fines. Digitally, India has also advanced further, with nearly 40% of requests submitted through online portals7.
Since its adoption in 2011, Nigeria’s FOIA has faced persistent obstacles. Fewer than 10,000 requests have been formally documented (according to Media Rights Agenda, 2023), a figure dwarfed by more robust systems worldwide. Many agencies invoke exemptions vaguely, and the lack of a centralized oversight body means appeals default to the Attorney General, whose independence is often questioned. Awareness campaigns remain limited, leaving civil society groups such as the Nigerian Bar Association to fill the gap through training initiatives. Other barriers include routine delays beyond the seven-day statutory limit, poor digital access in rural areas, and reprisals against journalists investigating sensitive issues like electoral malpractice. These weaknesses contribute to Nigeria’s poor performance on Sustainable Development Goal 16 indicators, with Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index ranking the country 154th globally partly due to opaque procurement practices8.
By contrast, India’s RTI framework has been more dynamic and citizen-driven. Over 60,000 Public Information Officers (PIOs) have been appointed, and independent Information Commissions at both central and state levels handle appeals with relative efficiency. The Act has enabled landmark disclosures, such as the 2G spectrum scandal in 2010, which spurred major policy reforms. Proactive publication of information through government websites has expanded, though rural areas still lag behind urban centers. Importantly, commissions can impose fines of up to ₹25,000, and penalties are applied in roughly 5% of cases annually. Yet challenges remain: a backlog of nearly three million appeals (2022 data), the tragic killing of more than 80 RTI activists since 2005 and the 2019 amendment that curtailed commission autonomy. Despite these setbacks, RTI has
significantly deepened citizen participation and accountability, aligning with SDG 16 by strengthening oversight of programs such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.9
3.1 JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Judicial interpretation has played a pivotal role in shaping the scope and effectiveness of both Acts. In Nigeria, cases such as AG Fed. v. ANPP (2012)10 and Seriake Dickson v. NJC (2017)11 affirmed the FOIA’s constitutional validity but revealed weak enforcement. The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in AG Lagos v. Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly12 finally confirmed the FOIA’s applicability across all levels of government, resolving years of uncertainty.
In India, jurisprudence has been consistently pro-transparency. Landmark cases such as State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)13 recognized the right to know as integral to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Later rulings like CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)14 and Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry (2016)15 expanded the scope of disclosure, emphasizing that transparency overrides institutional secrecy. These judicial interventions have entrenched RTI as a cornerstone of participatory governance.
3.2 ANALYSIS
The Nigerian FOIA suffers from structural weaknesses: absence of independent oversight bodies, unrealistic response timelines, and limited enforcement. Public institutions often disregard requests without consequence, and awareness among citizens remains low. India’s RTI, in contrast, benefits from decentralized Information Commissions and a culture of active citizen participation, though recent amendments have raised concerns about reduced independence of these bodies.
Comparatively, Nigeria’s FOIA contains broader exemption clauses and lacks a public interest override, enabling excessive secrecy. India’s Section 8(2) provides a crucial safeguard by allowing disclosure when public interest outweighs protected interests. Moreover, India’s use of technology, through online RTI portals, has enhanced accessibility, whereas Nigeria’s implementation remains largely manual and opaque.
In Nigeria, judicial affirmation of the FOIA’s nationwide applicability in 2025 marked a significant milestone. Civil society organizations such as SERAP and Media Rights Agenda continue to push for better compliance. Meanwhile, India’s RTI framework faces new challenges following the 2019 Amendment Act, which altered the tenure and conditions of service for Information Commissioners, sparking concerns over executive influence. Nonetheless, RTI remains among the most used transparency laws globally, with millions of annual applications and a proven track record in exposing corruption and inefficiency.16
3.3 THE WAY FORWARD
Nigeria’s FOIA, though well intentioned, falters in implementation, perpetuating opacity and corruption. To improve Nigeria’s FOIA, lessons from India suggest: (1) Establish independent Information Commissions at federal and state levels for impartial appeals and penalties, mirroring RTI’s structure to deter noncompliance. (2) Extend the Act to states via uniform legislation, with mandatory digital portals for requests and disclosures to bridge access gaps. (3) Launch nationwide awareness campaigns, partnering with civil society like India’s MKSS model, targeting rural and marginalized groups. (4) Strengthen judicial oversight by incorporating public interest overrides and fasttrack courts for FOIA disputes, drawing from Indian precedents. (5) Protect requesters through anti reprisal
provisions and witness programs, addressing activist safety. Implementing these could elevate Nigeria’s FOIA, fostering accountable governance and sustainable development. These reforms, if implemented, can transform FOIA from a symbolic statute into a practical tool for accountability and democratic engagement.
4.0 CONCLUSION
This comparative study demonstrates that while both Nigeria’s FOIA and India’s RTI aim to institutionalize transparency, their outcomes diverge sharply. India’s RTI has succeeded due to strong institutional design, civic participation, and judicial reinforcement, whereas Nigeria’s FOIA remains hampered by weak enforcement and bureaucratic inertia. Strengthening Nigeria’s framework through institutional and legislative reforms is vital to ensure that the right to information becomes a lived reality. The FOIA must evolve from a formal right into a functional instrument of democracy and sustainable development.
Reference(S):
- Attorney-General of the Federation v ANPP [2012] 3 NWLR (Pt 1280) 351. 2. Seriake Dickson v National Judicial Council [2017] LPELR-43749(CA). 3. Attorney-General of Lagos State v Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly (SC, April 2025).
- State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 (India).
- CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 (India).
- Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 (India). 7. UNESCO, ‘Global Right to Information Rating Report’ (2015).
- Transparency International, ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2022’.
- Media Rights Agenda, ‘Compilation of Rulings and Judgments in FOI Cases in Nigeria’ (2023).
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘Twenty Years of RTI in India: Progress and Challenges’ (2025).
- Sudarsana Natchiappan, E. M. Right to Information: An Act for Best Citizenry. India: Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Limited. (2014).
1 UNESCO, ‘Global Right to Information Rating Report’ (2015).
2 Transparency International, ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2022’.
3 Sudarsana Natchiappan, E. M. Right to Information: An Act for Best Citizenry. India: Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Limited. (2014).
4 UNESCO, ‘Global Right to Information Rating Report’ (2015).
5 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘Twenty Years of RTI in India: Progress and Challenges’ (2025).
6 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘Twenty Years of RTI in India: Progress and Challenges’ (2025).
7 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, ‘Twenty Years of RTI in India: Progress and Challenges’ (2025).
8 Transparency International, ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2022’.
9 UNESCO, ‘Global Right to Information Rating Report’ (2015).
10 Attorney-General of the Federation v ANPP [2012] 3 NWLR (Pt 1280) 351
11 Seriake Dickson v National Judicial Council [2017] LPELR-43749(CA).
12 Attorney-General of Lagos State v Speaker, Lagos State House of Assembly (SC, April 2025) 13 State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 (India).
14 CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 (India).
15 Reserve Bank of India v Jayantilal N Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 (India).
16 UNESCO, ‘Global Right to Information Rating Report’ (2015).
