The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the National Assembly to open its books on the N37 billion expended on the renovation of its complex, adding to pressure on the federal legislature to embrace transparency in its use of public funds.
In the judgement delivered on 9 July, the judge, Emeka Nwite, affirmed the public’s right to access records of government spending.
|
|
Mr Nwite ruled that withholding such details “will not only defeat the very purpose of the Act but encourage corruption and financial recklessness.”
The judgement marks another milestone in the demand for financial and budgetary transparency in the National Assembly, which has made it its policy, against democratic and public accountability principles, to hide its annual budgets and other finances from the public. Under the cloud of secrecy, there is no official information about the earnings of lawmakers.
|
|
|
|---|
PREMIUM TIMES, on Tuesday, reviewed a certified true copy of the judgement shared by the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre), the plaintiff, to get the full picture of the case and the judge’s decision.
In December 2019, former President Muhammadu Buhari approved N37 billion to renovate the National Assembly Complex in Abuja. The 9th Assembly, led by Ahmed Lawal, cited deteriorating conditions, such as leaking roofs and flooding in the chambers to justify the allocation.
Some members of the House of Representatives, including Akin Alabi and Bamidele Salam, openly opposed the plan to spend N37 billion for the renovation of the complex, saying it amounted to a misplacement of priority.
On 17 December 2021, HEDA wrote to the National Assembly requesting the release of the details of the renovation proposal, but the legislature ignored the letter.
The snubbing prompted HEDA to file a suit to compel the National Assembly to release the information.
HEDA argued through its lawyer, Muhammad Lawal, that the FOI Act 2011 guaranteed public access to information and that the National Assembly contravened Section 20 of the Act by snubbing the request.
HEDA invoked section 25 of the FOI Act to ask the Federal High Court to compel the National Assembly to disclose details of the renovation proposal, assessment, approved allocation, and amount already disbursed.
National Assembly’s Argument
In its opposition to the suit, the National Assembly asked the Federal High Court, through its lawyer Charles Yoila, to dismiss the suit.
It argued that the suit is premature, incompetent, and filed in bad faith. Mr Yoila said HEDA failed to serve a mandatory three-month pre-action notice under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act, 2019 before filing the suit. He also contended that the suit was filed outside the 30 days allowed under the FoI Act.
The National Assembly contended that since HEDA had ignored the required notice or missed the statutory timeline, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It also argued that HEDA failed to demonstrate a specific interest in the information sought.
HEDA countered the claim that HEDA failed to issue a pre-action notice, stressing that the suit was for judicial review and Section 20 of the FOI Act specifically applies to denied information requests.
The applicant said that the respondent placed no valid defence to prevent disclosure. It pointed out that the Assembly remained in possession of the requested information despite the Federal Capital Development Authority handling the renovation.
The applicant cited Central Bank of Nigeria v. System Application Products Ltd (2005) and Alo v. Speaker, Ondo State House of Assembly (2018) to emphasise that an applicant need not show specific interest before the court can intervene in such a matter.
The applicant urged the court to discountenance the respondent’s arguments and grant its prayers.
FOI Act overrides other laws in HEDA suit
The judge, who first dismissed the National Assembly’s preliminary objection to the suit, struck down National Assembly’s defence that the Federal Capital Development Authority was solely responsible for the renovation and should be the appropriate body to disclose information about the project.
Mr Nwite said the claim was not supported by evidence. “There is absolutely nothing before this court that shows that the proposed renovation of the Respondent is exclusively the responsibility of the Federal Capital Development Authority,” the judge said.
He held that the information HEDA sought was “simple and harmless”.
Granting the order, the court ordered the National Assembly to disclose the proposal, assessment, and procedure employed by NAFCDA in arriving at the initially reported N37 billion for the renovation.
It also ordered the legislative body to provide the actual amount approved and allocated for the renovation as of the time of HEDA’s request, and the amount already disbursed for the project.
The court emphasised that the FOI Act was central to transparent governance in Nigeria, and it “affects everyone, every issue and every aspect of daily life” and is essential to an “open and participatory system of governance.”
He explained that Sections 1(2) and 1(3) of the Act grant any person the right to compel public institutions to release information, irrespective of specific interest.
He acknowledged that some pieces of information may be exempt from disclosure under Sections 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 of the FOI Act, but the National Assembly had not relied on any such provision.
Preliminary issues
In his judgement, Mr Nwite first struck out parts of the National Assembly’s counter-affidavit because they contained legal arguments and conclusions a witness cannot make.
He also addressed the National Assembly’s claim that HEDA failed to serve a pre-action notice under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act, 2017.
He declared that requiring HEDA to follow the three-month pre-action notice under Section 21 of the Legislative Houses (Powers & Privileges) Act before filing the suit would create an unreasonable and disorderly result, negating the purpose of the FOI Act, as its right to access information could become unenforceable, even if it sought an extension.
“Any applicant who has been denied access to information may apply to the Court for a review of the matter within 30 days, or within such further time as the Court may fix or allow,” he said.
The judge explained that HEDA had applied for judicial review and requested extra time. On 23 March 2022, the court granted the application, giving HEDA seven additional days to pursue the review. HEDA also filed a motion on notice on 28 March 2022, following the extension.
Mr Nwite further cited Ibru-Stankov v. Stankov (2016) and reaffirmed that specific laws prevail over general laws. And since the FOI Act specifically governs access to public information, it overrides the broader provisions of Section 21.
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT HERE
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
