The Federal High Court in Abuja has awarded a fine of N500, 000 against Abuja Electricity Distribution Company (AEDC) over its failure to grant a lawyer, Festus Onifade’s Freedom of Information (FoI) request.
The judge, Gladys Olotu, in a judgement, held that the refusal of the AEDC to furnish Mr Onifade and the co-applicant with the information in its custody was wrongful, unlawful and unconstitutional.
|
|
Ms Olotu said she found merit in the applicants’ request and issued an order compelling the company to furnish them with the information requested for in their letter dated 18 January 2023, within seven days of the order of the court.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Onifade alongside a group referred to as Coalition of Nigeria Consumers instituted the action on 22 February 2023. They brought the action under Section 76(12) of the Electric Power Sector Reform Act and the Freedom of Information Act 2011, among other laws.
|
|
|
|---|
The applicants, who sued AEDC as sole respondent in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/244/2023, sought four reliefs.
They sought a declaration that by Section 2(7) of the FoI Act 2011, the respondent (AEDC) is a public institution within the meaning and intendment of the Act.
They sought “a declaration that the refusal by the respondent to furnish the applicants with the information in its custody is wrongful, unlawful and unconstitutional,” among others.
The applicants canvassed six grounds in support of the application.
They said AEDC, in its letter dated 24 January 2023, refused the request that it was not bound by the FoI Act, 2011.
They said they had approached the court for a judiciary review as provided by law and the court’ for such application.
The AEDC, in its counter-affidavit dated 24 May 2024, told the court that its response was not a refusal to oblige the applicants of their request.
The company argued that it was rather in consonance with the demands of the extant law, under which the applicants brought their application.
“It is therefore absolutely incorrect for the applicant to conclude that his request (which he has not gone to receive) has been denied.
“As it is not the place of the right respondent to fetch whatever information demanded for and take it cap in hand to the location of the applicant.
“It would have been different had the applicant visited the respondent in demand for his request and he was denied.
“Or if the applicant has forwarded an address for delivery of his request and it was no sent.
“The cost of N500,000.00 being sought against the respondent is unwarranted as the Freedom of Information Act has not been breached by the respondent,” it said.
Judgement
Delivering the judgment on 13 September, the certified true copy of which was made available to NAN on Monday, the judge resolved all the issues in favour of the applicants.
“From the affidavit evidence before this court and as admitted by the applicants and not controverted by the respondent, it is clear that the federal government holds 40 per cent equity in the respondent company, while 60 per cent is held by a private entity.
“It is also not in dispute that the respondent is licensed by the federal government to distribute electricity to the public and operates as a utility company across several states, including the Federal Capital Territory.
“It is true as contented by the respondent that the applicants did not support their averments in their affidavit in support with documentary evidence.
“I am however of the view that this lacuna is not fatal to the applicants’ case because the facts about the federal government’s ownership of 40 per cent stake in the respondent and also that the respondent is licensed by the federal government to distribute electricity to Nigerians is notorious in the public domain.
“I therefore take judicial notice of these facts and hold that the applicants’ case will not be affected negatively by the omission in their case,” she said.
According to the judge, the question, then, is whether the respondent falls within the purview of a “public institution” under the Freedom of Information Act.
“This court answers in the affirmative,” she said.
“Accordingly, I find and hold that the respondent is subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, and its refusal to provide the requested Information on the basis that it is not bound by the Act is unlawful.
READ ALSO: Alleged Money Laundering: Jarvis threatens legal action against Peller
“I hereby resolve this issue in favour of the applicants and against the respondent” the judge declared.
Ms Olotu consequently held that the applicants were entitled to the information requested, and AEDC is under a legal duty to provide same in line with the provisions of both the FoI Act and Section 76(12) of the Electric Power Sector Reform Act
Mr Onifade, however, alleged that more than a month after the judgement, AEDC had neither furnished him with the requested information nor paid the N500,000 fine.
The lawyer, in a chat with NAN, said the company had not also filed an appeal or applied for a stay of execution of the court judgement.
“The court specifically said AEDC should comply with the order within seven days.
“As it stands now, they are in contempt of the court judgment,” he said.
(NAN)
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![Power Lines [Photo: energymixreport.com]](https://i0.wp.com/media.premiumtimesng.com/wp-content/files/2015/08/power_lines-construction-week-online.jpg?fit=800%2C550&ssl=1)
