The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos in a landmark judgment has held<\/p>\n
that successive governments since the return of democracy in 1999
\n\u201cbreached the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability
\nfor failing to disclose details about the spending of recovered stolen
\npublic funds, including on a dedicated website.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court then ordered the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to
\n\u201censure that his government, and the governments of former President
\nOlusegun Obasanjo, former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and former
\nPresident Goodluck Jonathan account fully for all recovered loot.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judgment was delivered on Friday by Hon Justice M.B. Idris following a
\nFreedom of Information suit no: FHC\/IKJ\/CS\/248\/2011 brought by
\nSocio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).<\/p>\n
The details ordered by the court to be disclosed include: information on
\nthe total amount of recovered stolen public assets by each government; the
\namount of recovered stolen public assets spent by each government as well
\nas the objects of such spending and the projects on which such funds were
\nspent.<\/p>\n
Justice Idris dismissed all the objections raised by the Federal
\nGovernment and upheld SERAP\u2019s arguments. Consequently, the court entered
\njudgment in favour of SERAP against the Federal Government as follows:<\/p>\n
1. A DECLARATION is hereby made that the failure and\/or refusal of the
\nRespondents to individually and\/or collectively disclose detailed
\ninformation about the spending of recovered stolen public funds since the
\nreturn of civil rule in 1999, and to publish widely such information,
\nincluding on a dedicated website, amounts to a breach of the fundamental
\nprinciples of transparency and accountability and violates Articles 9, 21
\nand 22 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples\u2019 Rights (Ratification
\nand Enforcement) Act<\/p>\n
2. A DECLARATION is hereby made that by virtue of the provisions of
\nSection 4 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, the 1st
\nDefendant\/Respondent is under a binding legal obligation to provide the
\nPlaintiff\/Applicant with up to date information on the spending of
\nrecovered stolen funds, including:<\/p>\n
(a) Detailed information on the total amount of recovered stolen public
\nassets that have so far been recovered by Nigeria<\/p>\n
(b) The amount that has been spent from the recovered stolen public
\nassets and the objects of such spending<\/p>\n
(c) Details of projects on which recovered stolen public assets were spent<\/p>\n
3. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is made directing and or compelling the
\nDefendants\/Respondents to provide the Plaintiff\/Applicant with up to date
\ninformation on recovered stolen funds since the return of civilian rule in
\n1999, including:<\/p>\n
(a) Detailed information on the total amount of recovered stolen public
\nassets that have so far been recovered by Nigeria<\/p>\n
(b) The amount that has been spent from the recovered stolen public
\nassets and the objects of such spending<\/p>\n
(c) Details of projects on which recovered stolen public assets were spent
\nSERAP deputy executive director Olukayode Majekodunmi said: \u201cThis judgment
\nconfirms the persistent failure of successive governments starting from
\nthe Obasanjo government, to respect Nigerians\u2019 right to a corruption-free
\nsociety and to uphold constitutional and international commitments on
\ntransparency and accountability. The judgment is an important step towards
\nreversing a culture of secrecy and corruption that has meant that
\nhigh-ranking government officials continue to look after themselves at the
\nexpense of the well-being of majority of Nigerians, and development of the
\ncountry.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a crucial precedent that vindicates the right to a transparent
\nand accountable government and affirms the human right of the Nigerian
\npeople to live a life free from want and fear. We are in the process of
\nobtaining a certified copy of the around 60 pages judgment. SERAP will do
\neverything within its power to secure the full and effective enforcement
\nof this judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Earlier, the Federal Government through their Counsel, Sheba Olugbenga
\nfiled a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26th day of March, 2012 on
\nthe following grounds: that SERAP lacked the locus standi to institute the
\naction; that the action was statute barred; and that SERAP\u2019s affidavit
\nevidence offends the provisions of the Evidence Act. On May 8th 2012 the
\nFederal Government filed additional written address in support of their
\nPreliminary Objection, arguing most extensively on the retroactive nature
\nof SERAP\u2019s request; that is, the Freedom of Information Act, having been
\nenacted in 2011, does not apply to spending by governments since 1999.<\/p>\n
In response, SERAP argued that the FOI Act is a special specie of
\nlegislation to liberalize and expand access to information for all
\nNigerians; that the FOI Act does not impose any requirement of locus
\nstandi on applicants; that the only relevant limitation period in the case
\nis that which requires filing of suit within 30 days if information is not
\ngiven; that the right which the FOI Act seeks to protect is the right of
\nthe public to have access to information which is in custody of a public
\nofficial or institution; and that the information sought by SERAP is not
\ncaught by the law against retroactivity, noting that the right in question
\nis expropriatory in nature which justifies the granting of access to the
\nrequested information on the ground of overriding public interest.
\nSERAP also argued in its pleadings that \u201cBy virtue of Section 1 (1) of the
\nFOI Act 2011, it is entitled as of right to request for or gain access to
\ninformation which is in the custody or possession of any public official,
\nagency or institution. By the provisions of Section 2(7) and 31 of the FOI
\nAct 2011, the Accountant General of the Federation is a public official.
\nBy virtue of Section 4 (a) of the FOI Act when a person makes a request
\nfor information from a public official, institution or agency, the public
\nofficial, institution or agency to whom the application is directed is
\nunder a binding legal obligation to provide the applicant with the
\ninformation requested for, except as otherwise provided by the Act, within
\n7 days after the application is received.\u201d
\nThe organization also argued that, \u201cThe information requested relates to
\nthe spending on recovered stolen funds since the return of civilian rule
\nin 1999. By Sections 2(3)(d)(V) & (4) of the FOI Act, a public official is
\nunder a binding legal duty to ensure that documents containing information
\nrelating to the receipt or expenditure of recovered stolen funds are
\nwidely disseminated and made readily available to members of the public
\nthrough various means.\u201d
\nAccording to the organization, \u201cThe information requested does not come
\nwithin the purview of the types of information exempted from disclosure by
\nthe provisions of the FOI Act. The government has no reason whatsoever to
\ndeny SERAP access to the information sought. The requested information,
\napart from not being exempted from disclosure under the FOI Act, bothers
\non an issue of national interest, public concern, social justice, good
\ngovernance, transparency and accountability.\u201d
\n\u201cThe power or discretion to refuse to give access to information requested
\nfor cannot be exercised in vacuo. Such a power or discretion must be
\nprovided for by the FOI Act itself. This means, therefore, that a request
\nfor information can only be denied or turned down if the information
\nrequested is one which is exempted from disclosure under the provisions of
\nthe FOI Act. In the case at hand, the information requested for by the
\nplaintiff relates strictly to the spending of recovered stolen funds since
\nthe return of civilian rule in 1999.\u201d
\n\u201cObedience to the rule of law by all citizens but more particularly those
\nwho publicly took oath of office to protect and preserve the constitution
\nis a desideratum to good governance and respect for the rule of law. In a
\ndemocratic society, this is meant to be a norm; it is an apostasy for
\ngovernment to ignore the provisions of the law and the necessary rules
\nmade to regulate matters.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos in a landmark judgment has held that successive governments since the return of democracy in 1999 \u201cbreached the fundamental principles of transparency and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":47039,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exclusive"],"yoast_head":"\n