Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:52:23.302Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of Nigerian Legislation with International Best Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2014

Uzuazo Etemire
Uzuazo Etemire*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland (United Kingdom). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public access to environmental information is a recurring theme in many international environmental law regimes. Nigeria has ratified and committed itself to many such regimes over the years. And yet, until recently, it had a culture of secrecy in (environmental) governance that was sustained by legislation, with the attendant harm to the environment and public well-being. This changed in 2011, with the enactment of the Nigerian Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. This article uniquely assesses the value of the Nigerian FOI Act in relation to what may largely be considered international best practice principles on public access to environmental information as generally reflected in the UNECE’s Aarhus Convention. Even though Nigeria is not a party to it, it is argued that the Convention is still legally and politically relevant to Nigeria. This comparative analysis will reveal areas where the Nigerian FOI Act aligns with, probably goes beyond, but also falls short of best practice, thus leading to some suggestions for improvement in the Act in order to ensure better public access to environmental information.

Keywords

Public Access to Environmental InformationPublic ParticipationAarhus ConventionNigerian Freedom of Information Act
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 149 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Pateman, C., Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

2 Seligson, M.A. & Booth, J.A. (eds), Elections and Democracy in Central America Revisited (University of North Carolina Press, 1995), at pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

3 See Rousseau, J.J., The Social Contract (Watkins, F. (ed. & transl.), University of Wisconsin Press, 1986), at pp. 102–6.Google Scholar

4 Pring, G. & Noe, S.Y., ‘The Emerging International Law of Public Participation Affecting Global Mining, Energy, and Resources Development’, in Zillman, D.N., Lucas, A.R. & Pring, G. (eds), Human Rights in National Resource Development: Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resource (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 11–76, at 11.Google Scholar See also, Roughan, N., ‘Democratic Custom v International Customary Law’ (2007) 38 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, pp. 403–16, at 407.Google Scholar

5 See Pring & Noe, ibid., at p. 29; and Popovic, N.A.F., ‘The Right to Participate in Decisions that Affect the Environment’ (1993) 10(2) Pace Environmental Law Review, pp. 683–709, at 694.Google Scholar

6 Krämer, L., ‘Transnational Access to Environmental Information’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 95–104, at 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Weiner, N., The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society (Doubleday & Company Inc., 1956), at p. 18.Google Scholar

8 See Kravchenko, S., ‘Is Access to Environmental Information a Fundamental Human Right?’ (2009) 11(2) Oregon Review of International Law, pp. 227–65, at 228Google Scholar; and Bell, S., McGillivray, D. & Pedersen, O., Environmental Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press, 2013), at pp. 317–9.Google Scholar

9 Freedom of Information Act, 28 May 2011, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, (2011) 36(98) Official Gazette, available at: http://foia.justice.gov.ng/pages/resources/Freedom_Of_Information_Act.pdf.

10 See Tardi, G., ‘Law as a Counterweight to Politicisation in Democratic Public Management’ (2012) 38(4) Commonwealth Law Bulletin, pp. 591–615, at 595–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and S. Kravchenko, ‘Strengthening Implementation of MEAs: The Innovative Aarhus Compliance Mechanism’, paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, Marrakech (Morocco), 7–15 Apr. 2005, at p. 4, available at: http://inece.org/conference/7/vol1/Kravchenko.pdf.

11 This article focuses mainly on the duty of public authorities to provide environmental information upon request, and not on their duty to actively disseminate environmental information.

12 See Pring & Noe, n. 4 above.

13 Paris (France), 16 Nov. 1972, in force 17 Dec. 1975, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. Ratified by Nigeria on 23 Oct. 1974.

14 New York, NY (United States), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int. Ratified by Nigeria on 19 Aug. 1994.

15 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text. Ratified by Nigeria on 29 Aug. 1994.

16 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biodiversity, Montreal (Canada), 29 Jan. 2000, in force 11 Sept. 2003, available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf. Ratified by Nigeria on 15 July 2003.

17 Paris (France), 17 June 1994, in force 26 Dec. 1996, available at: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/conventionText/conv-eng.pdf. Ratified by Nigeria on 8 July 1997.

18 UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/7, 28 Oct. 1982, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm.

19 Adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, available at: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

20 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 3–14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26, 12 Aug. 1992, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

21 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

22 See Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. & Hunter, D., ‘Democratizing Multilateral Development Banks’, in Bruch, C. (ed), The New ‘Public’: The Globalization of Public Participation (Environmental Law Institute, 2002), pp. 151–64.Google Scholar

23 See N. Gertler & E. Milhollin, ‘Public Participation and Access to Justice in the World Trade Organisation’, in Bruch, ibid., pp. 193–202.

24 See A. Fall, ‘Implementing Public Participation in African Development Bank Operations’, in Bruch, n. 22 above, pp. 165–74.

25 J. Foti, ‘Rio+20 in the Rear View: Countries Commit to Improve Environmental Democracy’, WRI Insight, 2 July 2012, available at: http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/07/rio20-rear-view-countries-commit-improve-environmental-governance.

26 Händl, G. (ed), Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration), 1972 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992 (UN Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2012)Google Scholar, at p. 6, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/pdf/ha/dunche/dunche_e.pdf. See also G. Händl, ‘Human Rights and Protection of the Environment: A Mildly “Revisionist” View’, in C. Trindade (ed), Human Rights, Sustainable Development and the Environment (Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos/Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, 1992), pp. 117–42, at 139–40.

27 A growing view highlighted in C. Bruch, ‘Legal Frameworks for Public and Stakeholder Involvement’, presentation at the Regional Workshop on Public Participation in International Waters Management in Latin America and the Caribbean, Montenegro (Uruguay), 6–9 Dec. 2006, available at: http://iwlearn.net/abt_iwlearn/events/workshops/p2/20061207/p2lac07-bruch. For a discussion on customary international law, see T. Treves, ‘Customary International Law’, in R. Wolfrum (ed), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (online edition) (Oxford University Press, 2008), available at: http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e1393&recno=29&.

28 Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Reports (2010), at p. 14, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/135/15877.pdf.

29 A. Boyle, ‘Pulp Mills Case: A Commentary’, at p. 3, available at: http://www.biicl.org/files/5167_pulp_mills_case.pdf.

30 Pulp Mills Case, n. 28 above, para. 205.

31 See Cameron, J. & Mackenzie, R., ‘Access to Environmental Justice and Procedural Rights in International Institutions’, in Boyle, A. & Anderson, M. (eds), Human Rights Approach to Environmental Protection (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 129–52, at 134.Google Scholar

32 See UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), ‘Rio Principle 10 National Profile and Action Plan Project’, available at: http://www.unitar.org/egp/rio-principle-10-projects.

33 Stec, S. & Casey-Lefkowitz, S., The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide (UN, 2001), Foreword, at p. v. (Aarhus Guide).Google Scholar

34 Mason, M., ‘Information Disclosure and Environmental Rights: The Aarhus Convention’ (2010) 10(3) Global Environmental Politics, pp. 10–31, at 21–2.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., at p. 160. See also Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 6; Hallo, R., ‘Access to Environmental Information: The Reciprocal Influences of EU Law and the Aarhus Convention’, in Pallemaerts, M. (ed), The Aarhus Convention at Ten: Interactions and Tensions Between Conventional International Law and EU Environmental Law (Europa Law, 2011), pp. 55–66, at 62Google Scholar; Antonelli, A. & Biondi, A., ‘Implementing the Aarhus Convention: Some Lessons from the Italian Experience’ (2003) 5(3) Environmental Law Review, pp. 170–78, at 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Available at: http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Compliance/NegotiatingMEAs/Transparency/Resource/tabid/605/Default.aspx.

37 See J. Wates, ‘The Future of the Aarhus Convention: Perspectives Arising from the Third Session of the Meeting of the Parties’, in Pallemaerts (ed), n. 35 above, pp. 383–412, at 395.

38 See Nascimento da Nóbrega, S.A., ‘Access to Environmental Information: A Comparative Analysis of the Aarhus Convention with Brazilian Legislation’ (2011) 2 Environmental Law Network International, pp. 87–95, at 87–8.Google Scholar

39 UNEP, 4th Programme for the Development and Review of Environmental Law, UNEP/GC.25/INF/15/Add.2, 29 Oct. 2008, at p. 3, available at: http://www.unep.org/gc/gc25/info-docs.asp.

40 Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 6.

41 Taskin and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 46117/99, Judgment of 10 Nov. 2004, pp. 1–29, available at: http://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ECtHR-2005-Taskin-and-Ors-v-Turkey.pdf.

42 Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 613–42, at 624.Google Scholar

43 UNECA, Improving Public Participation in the Sustainable Development of Mineral Resources in Africa (UNECA, 2004), at pp. 15–6 and 37, available at: http://repository.uneca.org/bitstream/handle/10855/5560/bib.%2039823_I.pdf?sequence=1.

44 See n. 16 above.

45 M.W. Kamara, Public Participation in African Biosafety Regulations and Policy (African Union Commission, 2010), at p. 8, available at: http://www.cbd.int/bs/doc/outreach/auc-public-participation-en.pdf.

46 UNEP/GCSS.XI/11, Decision SS.XI/5, Part A, 26 Feb. 2010, available at: http://www.unep.org/civil-society/Portals/24105/documents/Guidelines/GUIDELINES_TO_ACCESS_TO_ENV_INFO_2.pdf.

47 The UNEP Governing Council is a political body made up of 58 Member States elected by the UN General Assembly for three-year terms on the following basis (taking into account the principle of equitable regional representation): 16 seats for African states, 13 seats for Asian states, 6 seats for Eastern European states, 10 seats for Latin American states, and 13 seats for Western European and other states. Generally, the UNEP General Council has responsibility for recommending and providing policies relevant for environmental protection. See UNGA Resolution 2997 (XXVII), 15 Dec. 1972, on Institutional and Financial Arrangements for International Environmental Cooperation, available at: http://www.unep.org/PDF/UN_GA_2997.pdf.

48 Bali Guidelines, n. 46 above, Annex.

49 See Heyvaert, V. & Etty, T.F.M., ‘Introducing Transnational Environmental Law’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 1–11, at 3–5Google Scholar; and Fisher, E., ‘The Rise of Transnational Environmental Law and the Expertise of Environmental Lawyers’ (2012) 1(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar

50 Y. Omorogbe, ‘The Power of the People: Public Participation and Control in Resource-rich States’, presentation at the 36th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society of International Law, River State (Nigeria), 14–6 Sept. 2006.

51 See West African Insight, ‘Oil Exploration, Environmental Rights, and the Future of Nigeria’s Niger Delta’, West African Insight, 10 Oct. 2010, available at: http://westafricainsight.org/articles/PDF/61.

52 In Nigeria, in accordance with s. 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Cap 23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) (Nigerian Constitution), a legislative enactment is needed to give domestic effect to the provisions of a treaty ratified by the Nigerian government.

53 E.g., Evidence Act, Cap E14; Public Complaints Commission Act, Cap P37; Statistics Act, Cap S10; Criminal Code Act, Cap C38; National Security Agencies Act, Cap N74 – all under the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

54 Cap O3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

55 Ibid., s. 1.

56 See s. 9(1).

57 S. Olukoya, ‘Rights-Nigeria: Freedom of Information Bill Proves Elusive’, Inter Press Service, 21 June 2004, available at: http://ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=24297.

58 Amnesty International, Nigeria: Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta (Amnesty International, 2009), at p. 21, available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/017/2009/en/e2415061-da5c-44f8-a73c-a7a4766ee21d/afr440172009en.pdf.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., p. 61.

61 Ibid., p. 51.

62 Ibid.

63 (2001) African Human Rights Law Reports 60.

64 Ibid., para. 4.

65 Art. 16 generally provides for the right of every individual to the ‘best attainable state of physical and mental health’.

66 Art. 24 provides for the right of all peoples to ‘a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development’.

67 Banjul (Gambia), 27 June 1981, in force 21 Oct. 1986, available at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm.

68 Ogoniland case, n. 63 above, paras 53 and 70–1.

69 African Charter, n. 67 above, Art. 45.

70 I.e., African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

71 C.A. Odinkalu, ‘Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Law: How Friends Launched a Movement’, Open Society Foundations, 3 June 2011, available at: http://www.soros.org/voices/nigeria-s-freedom-information-law-how-friends-launched-movement.

72 Ibid.

73 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 31 defines ‘public institution’ to include government bodies and some private entities.

74 Ibid., s. 1. See the definition of ‘person’ in s. 31 of the Act.

75 Ibid., s. 1(1). See also ss. 28 and 30(2).

76 Ibid., ss. 7 and 10.

77 Ibid., ss. 2(6) and 20.

78 See C.A. Odinkalu, ‘10 Myths about the FOI Act’, Right to Know, 25 Aug. 2011, available at: http://www.r2knigeria.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=200&Itemid=313.

79 E.g., Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the US: see Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 35.

80 FOI Act, n. 9 above, ss. 1(1) and 31. See Shelton, D. & Kiss, A., Judicial Handbook on Environmental Law (UNEP, 2005), at p. 27.Google Scholar

81 See Kalu, V.E., ‘State Monopoly and Indigenous Participation Rights in Resource Development in Nigeria’ (2008) 24(3) Journal of Energy and Natural Resource Law, pp. 418–49, at 441–2Google Scholar; and Atsegbua, L., Akpotaire, V. & Dimowo, F., Environmental Law in Nigeria: Theory and Practice (2nd edn, Ambik Press, 2010), at p. 250.Google Scholar

82 The Federal Ministry of Justice, Nigeria, ‘Nigeria’s 4th Periodic Country Report: 2008–2010 on the Implementation of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights in Nigeria’, Aug. 2011, at p. 14, available at: http://www.achpr.org/files/sessions/50th/state-reports/4th-2008-2010/staterep4_nigeria_2011_eng.pdf.

83 N. 46 above, Guideline 1.

84 E.g., UNFCCC, n. 14 above, Art. 6(a)(ii); UNCCD, n. 17 above, Art. 19(3)(b); and Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, n. 16 above, Art. 23(1)(b).

85 Cf. Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 54.

86 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 3(4).

87 Commentary to Bali Guidelines 1 and 8, n. 48 above.

88 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 3(3).

89 For empirical evidence from India that supports this point, see Roberts, A., ‘A Great and Revolutionary Law? The First Four Years of India’s Right to Information Act’ (2010) 70(6) Public Administration Review, pp. 925–33, at 931.Google Scholar

90 See Nigerian Communications Commission, ‘Annual Subscriber Data: 2012’, available at: http://www.ncc.gov.ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:art-statistics-subscriber-data&catid=65:cat-web-statistics&Itemid=73. See also International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ‘Measuring the Information Society’ (ITU, 2012), at p. 211, available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf.

91 ‘Guidelines on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, Revised Edition 2013’, published under the authority of the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, available at: http://foia.justice.gov.ng/pages/resources/REVISED_GUIDELINES_ON_THE_IMPLEMENTATION_OF_THE_FOIA_2013.pdf.

92 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 29(6).

93 Attorney-General of the Federation, ‘Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2011 and the Reporting Requirements under Section 29 thereof’, Memorandum (HAGF/MDAS/FOIA/2012/I) issued on 28 Jan. 2012 to all public institutions (Attorney-General’s FOI Act Memorandum).

94 The reference to another form here should be taken to mean that the information contained in the original form must be the same as that contained in the form requested, and not a summary of it: Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 55.

95 Commentary to Bali Guideline 1, n. 48 above.

96 Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-sixth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with Regard to Compliance by Spain, Communication ACCC/C/2008/24’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/8/Add.1, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 70. See also the United Kingdom case of Office of Communications v. Information Commissioner and T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Appeal No. EA/2006/0078, 4 Sept. 2007.

97 See Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Art. 2(3).

98 Nigeria has about 500 native languages: see R. Blench, An Atlas of Nigerian Languages (3rd edn, Roger Blench, 2012), available at: http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Africa/Nigeria/Atlas%20of%20Nigerian%20Languages-%20ed%20III.pdf.

99 See National Bureau of Statistics (Nigeria), ‘The National Literacy Survey’, June 2010, at p. 12, available at: http://resourcedat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/National-Literacy-Survey-2010.pdf.

100 See O.S. Adegoke et al., ‘Draft Objectives and Strategies for Nigeria’s Agenda 21’, UNDP Support Environment and Natural Resources Management Programme for Nigeria (NIR\C3) (1999), at para. 2.12, available at: http://www.nesrea.org/images/NIGERIA'S%20AGENDA%2021.pdf.

101 Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Art. 3(2).

102 National Bureau of Statistics (Nigeria), n. 99 above.

103 Roberts, n. 89 above, at pp. 927–8.

104 Mmadu, R.A., ‘A Critical Assessment of Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act 2011’ (2011) 1(1) Sacha Journal of Human Rights, pp. 118–47, at 142.Google Scholar

105 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 4(a) and (b).

106 Ibid., s. 6. This provision, however, is poorly drafted and may be confusing as it incorrectly refers to s. 6 as the provision containing the original time limit rather than s. 4 (which states that it (i.e. s. 4) is ‘subject to section 6’). This requires amendment to avoid unnecessary conflict and to ensure clarity and consistency in line with the common sense position of Art. 3(1) of the Aarhus Convention.

107 Right to Know, ‘Implementing Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act 2011 – The Journey so Far: A Report on the Level of Awareness, Compliance and Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, 18 Months after its Enactment’ (2012), available at: http://r2knigeria.org/index.php/downloads/foi-assessments-a-reports/doc_view/84-implementing-nigerias-foi-act-2011-the-journey-so-far?tmpl=component&format=raw.

108 N. 46 above, Guideline 1.

109 Ibid., para. 1.6 (emphasis added). See also Attorney-General’s FOI Act Memorandum, n. 93 above.

110 Generally, the refusal must be effected within 7 days, and at most 14 days, after the application is received (the argument on this time limit in the preceding section applies here). See FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 4.

111 ‘The refusal shall be made as soon as possible and at the latest within one month, … [and at most] two months after the request’: see FOI Act, n. 9 above, Art. 4(7).

112 Coppel, P., Information Rights: Law and Practice (3rd edn, Hart, 2010), at p. 184.Google Scholar

113 Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at pp. 56–7.

114 Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Art. 5(1)(a).

115 Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 63.

116 For an attempt to fill this gap see the FOI Act Implementation Guidelines, n. 91 above, Template 1.

117 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 5(1). According to s. 5(3) of the FOI Act, ‘a public institution has “a greater interest” in information if – (a) the information was originally produced in or for the institution; or (b) ... the institution was the first public institution to receive the information’.

118 See Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-third Meeting (Addendum): Findings with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2007/21 Concerning Compliance by the European Community’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/2/Add.1, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 31.

119 Frynas, J.G., ‘Problems of Access to Courts in Nigeria: Results of a Survey of Legal Practitioners’ (2001) 10(3) Social and Legal Studies, pp. 397–419, at 408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

120 See Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-eighth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2009/36 Concerning Compliance by Spain’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2010/4/Add.28, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 58; and Compliance Committee, ‘Report of the Compliance Committee on its Twenty-fifth Meeting (Addendum): Findings and Recommendations with regard to Communication ACCC/C/2008/30 Concerning Compliance by the Republic of Moldova’, ECE/MP.PP/C.1/2009/6/Add.3, 8 Feb. 2011, at para. 39.

121 Commentary to Guideline 3, n. 48 above.

122 See Ziza v. Mamman (2002) 5 Nigerian Weekly Law Reports (part 760) 243, at p. 265.

123 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 18.

124 Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 63.

125 Commentary to Guideline 3, n. 48 above.

126 It is noteworthy that charges for ‘document search’, provided for in the 1999, 2004 and 2007 versions of the FOI Bills, was readily excluded from the FOI Act.

127 It is noteworthy that while the 1999, 2004 and 2007 versions of the FOI Bill used the phrase ‘reasonable standard charges’, ‘reasonable’ was carefully excluded from the FOI Act to make way for the public to be charged fully in all instances.

128 Bali Guidelines, n. 46 above, Guideline 1. See also Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 65.

129 Compliance Committee, ‘Spain, Communication ACCC/C/2008/24’, n. 96 above, paras. 77 and 79.

130 ECJ, Case C-217/97, Commission v. Germany [1999] ECR I-5087, para. 48. See Kravchenko, n. 8 above, at p. 258.

131 See Australian Law Reform Commission, ‘Open Government: A Review of the Federal Freedom of Information Act 1982’, Report 77, 1996, paras. 2.11 and 14.2, available at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/ALRC77.pdf.

132 Information Commissioner of Canada, ‘Annual Report 1993–94’, at p. 9, available at: http://www.oic-ci.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr-ar-ra-archive.aspx.

133 See Mmadu, n. 104 above, at p. 141.

134 Australian Law Reform Commission, n. 131 above, para. 14.19.

135 Aarhus Guide, n. 33 above, at p. 65.

136 Ibid.

137 Ibid.

138 N. 91 above, para. 1.11.

139 Krämer, n. 6 above, at pp. 95–6.

140 Kravchenko, n. 8 above, at p. 245.

141 Aarhus Convention, n. 21 above, Arts. 4(3)-(4) and 5(10).

142 P. Davies, ‘Public Participation, the Aarhus Convention, and the European Community’, in Zillman, Lucas & Pring (eds), n. 4 above, pp. 155–86, at 162.

143 Kravchenko, n. 8 above, at p. 252 (emphasis added).

144 N. 46 above, Guideline 3.

145 A position reflected in Principle 6(G) of the Sofia Guidelines on Access to Environmental Information and Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making, ECE/CPE/24, 25 Oct. 1995, which is referred to in the Preamble to the Convention. See also the United Kingdom Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI No. 2004/ 3391), reg. 12(3), and Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SI No. 2004/ 520), regs 10(3) and 11(1).

146 Ebbesson, Cf. J., ‘The Notion of Public Participation in International Environmental Law’ (1997) 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, pp. 51–97, at 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

147 FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 11(1).

148 Ibid., s. 12(1)(a)(i)(ii)(iii)(vi). For the purpose of s. 12(1)(a), ‘enforcement proceeding’ is defined in s. 12(4).

149 Ibid., s. 14(1) and (2).

150 Ibid., s. 15(1)(a).

151 Ibid., s. 15(1)(c).

152 Ibid., s. 16.

153 Ibid., s. 17. It should be noted that the FOI Act does not contain exemptions similar to those in Art. 4(3) (b) and (c) of the Aarhus Convention pertaining to where ‘[t]he request is manifestly unreasonable or formulated in too general a manner’, and which ‘concerns material in the course of completion or concerns internal communications of public authorities …’, respectively.

154 See s. 15(3) of the FOI Act, under which public institutions may on their own volition choose to disclose such information.

155 Available at: http://www.nesrea.org/images/National%20Policy%20on%20Environment.pdf.

156 Ibid., para. 6.6(f).

157 See, e.g., FOI Act, n. 9 above, s. 11(2).

158 N. 91 above, para. 1.13.1. FOI Act, s. 16, not elaborated on here, is also one of the unqualified exemptions.

159 Ibid.

160 Ibid., paras 1.2. and 12.1.1.

161 Ibid., para. 12.1.1.