Presidential Research & Communications Unit

The business of government and governance is a serious one that requires inputs from several sectors and individuals. A lot goes into policy making. Data and sources must be protected for security and confidentiality. No serious government lays all its cards on the table before a camera. That would be playing to the gallery. And because there is confidentiality, the final product is respected. Knowledgeable people feel more confident to come forward with suggestions which influence the outcome of public policy.

During the military era, Nigeria swung from ban on importation to import liberalisation, from destination inspection to pre-import destination, each policy with significant consequence on commerce and trade. You could imagine the embarrassment if before government decides from the plethora of contributions from stakeholders, the matter was already in the public domain. It would also be wasteful and economically suicidal. No economy is run that way.

By sheer coincidence, the oath of secrecy “incident” is being lumped together with the legislative procrastination and controversial changes being effected on the original draft of the Freedom of Information Bill. Both are disconnected and have nothing in common. A prominent journalist, lawyer and former Information Minister, Prince Tony Momoh, in a newspaper commentary lumped both “actions” together and proceeded to adjudge “both acts” as “retrogressive, unpatriotic and insulting”. These are harsh words indeed and coming from an eminent person like Prince Momoh, carry his weighty endorsement.

In less giddy moments, the former Minister might have a rethink and possibly rephrase his verdict. The Freedom of Information Bill is a different kettle of fish and has no connections whatsoever with the Oath of Secrecy administered on principal officers of the Presidency who have a professional and ethical obligation to protect the sensitive information they come across while serving the President and the country. There is absolutely nothing “retrogressive, unpatriotic or insulting” in asking a Presidential aide to treat with utmost discreet and circumspection the information he comes across while serving in the seat of power. Prince Momoh should know better as a former minister responsible for information. Government business requires prudent and mature handling. Information is sensitive and sacred, sometimes sensible management of information makes the difference between the success and failure of a government policy or programme.

Prince Momoh drew a line between the legality of the oath (which he did not contest) and the legitimacy (which he finds questionable). Unlike others who went out of their way to challenge the legality of administering the oaths, Prince Momoh questions the rationale for such an oath when “a breach of the Official Secrets Act has clear provisions on what will befall the officer that is guilty of the breach”. The double act of oath taking, contrary to his argument, does not pose any legitimacy problems either to the government or the officers who took them. This is why the event was widely publicised and not shrouded in secrecy.

The Yar’Adua administration prides itself as one guided by the rule of law and transparency. The oath taking should suffer legitimacy crisis if it were done in an illicit manner. We have heard about aides to Governors dragged to fetish shrines by their insecure bosses trying to squeeze out loyalty from their aides. But here we have a situation where the President resorts to due process and legal means to reinforce the subject and letter of the Official Secrets Act, which many of the officers probably do not know about. Did the oath taking compromise the religious or moral belief of the officials? The unequivocal answer is no. It was meant to reinforce the sense of confidentiality and to instil a sense of personal propriety for government papers and positions before they are made public. The oath is both symbolic and legitimate. It reinforces the sense of personal responsibility which the President expects his personal staff to exercise in their judgment as they come into contact with important information.

People sing the National Anthem and recite the National Pledge at important functions. It does not mean that one cannot imbibe the patriotic passions in the anthem and pledge after the first reading. It merely underpins the solemnity and sacredness of the anthem and pledge as national symbols and the personal responsibility the Nigerian assumes each time he undertakes to recite them in public.

The President’s aides are distinguished men and women with patriotic zeal and personal consciences. The fear that they may compromise their ethical sensibilities by swearing to an oath of allegiance to their boss is insipid. They are high flying professionals in their own right and men of integrity who can be trusted to exercise conscionable judgment on matters of principles.

Luckily for this country, the Yar’Adua Presidency is by far the most transparent and most committed to both the rule of law and due process. Fears that taking an oath might compromise the integrity of the aides should never even arise. President Yar’Adua was the first to show the way to transparency and good personal example in leadership. He went beyond the constitutional requirement of declaring his asset by making it public. This was very early in his administration. His Vice President quickly followed suit. This is a president who is more than nominally committed to the fight against corruption. A minister in his administration and some civil servants in the Ministry of Health are today facing trial for alleged corruption. The EFCC and ICPC have been re-invigorated and strengthened to fight corruption.

The President has done the right things in the eyes of the law and refused to throw his Presidential weight around in the same temperamental and injudicious manner of old. Nigerians trust President Yar’Adua to exercise good judgment in matters of governance and public service. They know that the Oath of Allegiance to which his aides were recently committed was a measure of reinforcing their personal responsibility and increasing their watch over the sensitive information that pass through them.

Government all over the world work that way, in confidentiality and trust. People who contribute to policies and programmes sometimes do so at the risk of alienating their own constituencies or personal interest. Great patriots often rise above pettiness and clannish interests. When great patriots make this important sacrifice, they expect their contributions to be treated in utmost confidentiality otherwise it is not worth the trouble. The Presidency is the engine room of governance and leadership. The President’s aides must be people he can trust and people who understand their responsibility to their principal, their country and their own judgment.

The real goodness here is that by administering the oath of allegiance on his aides, the President did not infringe on any national law. Being a government of transparency and due process, the oath of secrecy must be seen as solidifying the trust and faith outsiders have in it, in sharing information on policy and programmes with it and in participating on sensitive national assignments.

Government is a product of strong leadership guided by consensus and extensive consultation. This only works under an environment of faith and belief. Let us say the oath of allegiance was a crucial act of confidence building by a Presidency committed to transforming the lives of Nigerians while strengthening the institutions of democracy including rule of law, transparency and due process.