There is prospect Nigerians keen on knowing how exactly the National
Assembly is run may soon have some answers, as Socio-Economic Rights and
Accountability Project (SERAP) has won the latest round in the legal battle
to compel the Senate President Dr Bukola Sakari and Speaker of the House of
Representatives Mr Dogara Yakubu to account for the spending of N500
billion as running cost for the legislative body between 2006 and 2016, and
disclose monthly allowances of each member.
Justice Rilwan Aikawa of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos on Friday
ruled that, “I have looked at the papers filed by SERAP and I am satisfied
that leave ought to be granted in this case for judicial review and an
order of mandamus directing and compelling Saraki and Dogara to account for
the spending of the running cost and disclose the monthly income and
allowances of each Senator and member.”
Justice Aikawa granted the order for leave following the hearing of an
argument in court on *exparte* motion by SERAP counsel Ms Bamisope
Ibidolapo.
The suit numbers FHC/L/CS/1711/16 and FHC/L/CS/1710/16 filed last
December followed
disclosure by Abdulmumin Jibrin that Nigerian Senators and House of
Representatives members have pocketed N500 billion as ‘running cost’ out of
the N1 trillion provided for in the National Assembly budgets between 2006
and 2016, and by former president Olusegun Obasanjo that each Senator goes
home with nothing less than N15m monthly while each member receives nothing
less than N10m monthly.
The order by Justice Aikawa has now cleared the way for SERAP to advance
its case against the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. The motion on notice is set for Tuesday 12 December, 2017
for the hearing of argument on why Saraki and Dogara should not be
compelled to publish details of the spending on the running of the National
Assembly and the exact monthly income and allowances of each Senator and
member.
The suits read in part: “Obedience to the rule of law by all citizens but
more particularly those who publicly took oath of office to protect and
preserve the constitution is a desideratum to good governance and respect
for the rule of law. In a democratic society, this is meant to be a norm;
it is an apostasy for government to ignore the provisions of the law and
the necessary rules made to regulate matters”.
“The Defendants will not suffer any injury or prejudice if the information
is released to the members of the public. It is in the interest of justice
that the information be released. Unless the reliefs sought herein are
granted, the Defendants will continue to be in breach of the Freedom of
Information Act, and other statutory responsibilities.”
“Up till the time of filing this action the Defendants/Respondents have
failed, neglected and/or refused to make available the information
requested by SERAP. The particulars of facts of the failure, negligence and
refusal are contained in the verifying affidavit in support of the
application and shall be relied upon at the hearing of this application. The
Defendants/Respondents have no reason whatsoever to deny SERAP access to
the information sought for.”
“By virtue of Section 1(1) of the FOI Act 2011, SERAP is entitled as of
right to request for or gain access to information which is in the custody
or possession of any public official, agency or institution. Under the FOI,
when a person makes a request for information from a public official,
institution or agency, the public official, institution or agency to whom
the application is under a binding legal obligation to provide the
Plaintiff/Applicant with the information requested for, except as otherwise
provided by the Act, within 7 days after the application is received.”
“The information requested for by SERAP relates to information about
spending of N500 billion as running cost between 2006 and 2016, and the
monthly income and allowances of each Senator and member. The information
requested by SERAP does not come within the purview of the types of
information exempted from disclosure by the provisions of the FOI Act. The
information requested for, apart from not being exempted from disclosure
under the FOI Act, bothers on an issue of National interest, public
concern, social justice, good governance, transparency and accountability.”
“It is submitted that Section 4(a) of the FOI Act 2011 is a mandatory and
absolute provision which imposes a binding legal duty or obligation on a
public official, agency or institution to comply with a request for access
to public information or records except where the FOI Act expressly permits
an exemption or derogation from the duty to disclose. Nigerian courts have
consistently held that the use of mandatory words such as “must” and
“shall” in a statute is naturally prima facie imperative and admits of no
discretion.”
The suits are respectively seeking the following reliefs:
1. *A DECLARATION* that the failure and/or refusal of the Respondents to
disclose the spending of N500 billion as running cost between 2006 and
2016, and the monthly income and allowances of each Senator and member
amounts to a breach of the fundamental principles of transparency and
accountability and violates Articles 9, 21 and 22 of the African
Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
2. *A DECLARATION* that by virtue of the provisions of Section 1 (1) and
Section 4 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, the
Defendants/Respondents are under a binding legal obligation to provide the
Plaintiff/Applicant with up to date information on the spending allowances
of each Senator and member including: Details of projects on which the
N500
billion running cost between 2006 and 2016 were spent.
3. *AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS* directing and or compelling the
Defendants/Respondents to provide the Plaintiff/Applicant with up to date
information on the spending of N500 billion as running cost between 2006
and 2016, and the monthly income and allowances of each Senator and member
including: Details of projects on which the N500 billion running cost
between 2006 and 2016 were spent.