The act of disclosing information, often by an employee, about activities within an organization, whether public or private, that are considered illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe, or fraudulent is termed as ‘whistleblowing’. A whistle-blower is someone who, without permission, discreetly exposes hidden, or confidential information regarding an organization, usually in the context of the organization being involved in a misconduct or wrongdoing. Normally, the disclosure is exposed in the best interest of public safety, accountability, and ethical standards, and this often makes whistle-blowers face personal risks for their actions.
Whistle-blowers serve as an important agent in uncovering corruption and misconduct within an organization. Their actions expose activities such as bribery, corruption, embezzlement, money laundering, sexual abuse, and other illicit practices.
It is noteworthy that disclosures made by whistle-blowers have resulted in the recovery of substantial amounts in fraud cases, thereby safeguarding taxpayers’ funds and ensuring that justice is served. It is evident that whistleblowing stands as one of the most crucial tools for both detecting and preventing corruption and, various forms of malpractice.
Whistleblower Law in Nigeria
Currently, Nigeria still does not have comprehensive whistleblowing legislation. Several attempts have also been made at creating whistleblowing legislation, such as the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2008, 2011, 2015, and 2019. While the Senate approved these bills, they did not become law as the president failed to assent to the bills.
There are however splintered provisions offered by different laws in the country. For example, Section ‘39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria’ protects the freedom to impart information without interference. While not quite targeted at whistle-blowers, it does embody the spirit of disclosing information.
Furthermore, there is Section 64(1) of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act also provides for the protection of whistle-blowers’ identity when reporting on offenses under the Act. This section has often been credited with the start of whistle-blowing in Nigeria. Section 63(3) of the Act also provides for the punishment of whistle-blowers who give false information. It is suggested that this is an important section as it serves to stand as a deterrent for abuse by the whistle-blower.
The protection of whistle-blowers was again captured in Section 39 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act of 2004 which is to the effect that officers of the commission cannot be compelled to disclose the source of information or identity of their informants except by the order of the Court. Again, Section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act of 2001 protects public officers or persons acting on behalf of a public institution from civil and criminal proceedings for the disclosure in good faith of any information or any part thereof pursuant to the act.
As provided above, the protection of whistle-blowers has been divided across different legislations. However, formal attempts have been made to create some more comprehensive legislation for the protection of whistle-blowers in Nigeria.
In 2016 however, there was a more active drive to have some sort of whistle-blowing policy in Nigeria, hence the Whistleblowing Stop Gap Policy of 2016 was introduced. The purpose of this policy was to encourage the reporting of mismanagement and misappropriation of public funds and assets. It also covered issues of corruption; collecting and soliciting for bribes; fraud etc. The policy introduced and adopted the approach of rewarding whistle-blowers whose information led to the successful recovery of funds.
More recently, the Whistleblowing Bill of 2019 was introduced to give statutory backing to not only rewarding whistle-blowers but also to protect whistle-blowers from reprisals, especially where there is victimization. Section 18 places a reverse burden on the perpetrator to establish that they did not victimize the whistle-blower, thereby potentially making claims easier. Section 20(3) highlights the relevant awards available to the whistle-blower where they have suffered reprisals and including reinstatement, transfers to another department, and reversal.
Reporting mechanisms
-
Internal Reporting Channels
Most whistle-blowers opt for internal reporting, where they disclose misconduct by a colleague or superior within their organization. This is typically done through anonymous reporting mechanisms, often referred to as hotlines.
Internal whistle-blowers bring concerns about the organization’s wrongdoing to a higher authority within the company. For instance, an employee may report fraudulent activity by a co-worker to the CEO or the head of the human resources department.
-
External Reporting Channels
External whistle-blowers take a different approach. They expose wrongdoing within a company to external authorities, such as law enforcement agencies, media organizations, regulatory bodies, and high-ranking government officials, amongst others. For instance, a contractor may divulge a significant fraudulent scheme to the appropriate government agency.
The Significance of Anonymity in Whistleblowing
Anonymity is a crucial element in whistleblowing as it allows individuals to come forward with information while shielding their identity. This protection empowers potential whistle-blowers to reveal wrongdoing without fear of personal repercussions or whatever.
While anonymity is vital, it must be balanced with the need for verifiable evidence. Maintaining a careful equilibrium between protecting whistle-blowers’ identities and providing sufficient evidence can be challenging but is essential for investigations and legal proceedings.
Limitations of the whistle-blowing regime in Nigeria
The provisions of section 115 (3) and (4) of the Evidence Act 2015 are to the effect that when a person deposes to his belief in any matter of fact and his belief is derived from any source other than his personal knowledge, he shall set forth explicitly the facts and circumstances forming the grounds of his believe and where such belief is derived from information received from another person, the name of the informant shall be stated and reasonable particulars shall be given respecting the informant and the time place and circumstance of the information.
The above provision of the Evidence Act appears to have placed a limitation on witness protection in Nigeria. Significantly, our Courts have refused to bat an eyelid in a bid to protect the identity of witnesses and whistle-blowers in Nigeria.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the legal considerations for whistle-blowers in Nigeria reflect the broader global effort to nurture an environment where “truth-tellers” can come forward without fear of retribution. By continually enhancing these legal frameworks, Nigeria can bolster its commitment to good governance, accountability, and the welfare of its citizens. Whistle-blowers remain the critical linchpin in achieving these objectives, and their protection should be paramount.
The relevance of whistleblowing in the public and private sector cannot be overstretched. It is therefore the author’s view that a comprehensive legislation be enacted to protect the identity of whistle-blowers and all laws that appear to limit whistleblowing be amended to accommodate whistleblowing.
