By Taiwo Adisa
On September 11, 2025, an Ondo State High Court presided over by Justice T.M. Adedipe gave a landmark ruling in respect of a request on the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. The justice, who ruled on the applications brought before him by an Akure-based legal practitioner, Mr. Femi Emannuel Emadamori, ordered the commissioner of Finance in the state to release certified true copies of the disbursements from the Joint State and Local Government Account, which warehouses the councils’ share of the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC).
Though Emadamori is yet to conclusively get to the end of his mission on the subject matter, it is interesting that a court of competent jurisdiction is stepping in to help fix the jigsaw around the Need To Know issues in democratic governance.
Since the return of democratic rule, actors in government and many citizens alike have painted things as if a mystery surrounds government’s actions and inactions and that there are many things the government sees sitting down that the citizens cannot see, even when they climb an Iroko tree.
I believe that such thinking informed the decision of the Ondo State government to file a suit on June 4, 2018, in which it challenged the ruling of a Court of Appeal, which affirmed the application of the FOI Act in all the 36 states of the federation. Speaker of Ondo State House of Assembly and the Auditor-General that year filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, declaring that the Akure Division of the Court of Appeal erred by ruling in March of the same year that the Freedom of Information Act was applicable in all 36 states of the country.
Counsels to Ondo State government had argued then that “The term information or freedom of information is neither in the executive legislative list nor the concurrent legislative list of the second schedule to the Constitution,” and that: “The power of the Federal Government to make law only extends to matters or items listed in the executive legislative list or the concurrent legislative list.”
Realising that the battles ahead against the spirit and soul of the FOI Act could be fierce and relentless, stakeholders in July this year put together a workshop to dissect the possible arrows against the implementation of the 2011 Act and the possible ways out of the conundrum.
But why should the FOI Act be of importance right now?
The question is Germain, and the answer also sits right at the centre of the practice and workability of democracy in this clime. There is no doubting the fact that democratic practice is becoming more problematic than we envisaged in those heady days of anti-military rule protests. Democracy is believed to be the government of the people, which will cater to the needs of the people and guarantee that their voices count in the ears of the government. As things stand, especially after 25 years of unbroken democratic rule in Nigeria, the disillusionment is clearly written. The last general election showcased a drop in the number of electorates who turned up for elections. It was said that voter turnout over the years has dropped by as much as 26 per cent. In Nigeria’s last general election, less than 23 million citizens determined the winners and losers of the nation’s presidency, in a country of 260 million.
The elders say that words you didn’t hear can’t cause you pain. But if the people must be encouraged to get involved in the affairs of their country and the states, information about government activities must be readily available to them. The people must be in a position to have the facts and figures they need to interpret the rate of service delivery at every level, which is the role the FOI Act is set out to play.
Thankfully, stakeholders are not sleeping on this important issue, and last July, members of the civil society, the media, academia, and public service gathered in Abuja to deliberate on the identifiable impediments to the implementation of the Freedom of Information (FOI). The gathering which was at the instance of the International Press Centre (IPC), Lagos, in collaboration with the Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC), the Centre for Media and Society (CEMESO), and YIAGA Africa, as part of the European Union Support to Democratic Governance in Nigeria, Phase II (EU-SDGN II), unveiled some landmark resolutions, which could provide the much-needed assistance to the nation’s democratic process.
Mr. Lanre Arogundade of the IPC had opened the meeting with a declaration that it was somewhat odd that Nigerians are still debating the implementation of the FOI 14 years after, adding that freedom of information is sacrosanct because it is the oxygen of democratic rights. He highlighted the need to revisit the regime of sanctions contained in the Act and welcomed the push by two members of the House of Representatives to propose varying amendments.
The communique released at the end of the three-day event called for urgent steps to be taken to address the gaps recognised in the implementation process of the FOI. Some of the gaps include the criminalisation of all offences under the law and the failure to give room to mediation by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation or that of the states.
Dr. Akin Akingbulu of CEMESO, who spoke at the meeting, related an experience thus: “This is an email from a stakeholder: I’m reaching out because my team is working on a project that involves Nigeria, and we are looking for some support with FOI work. Specifically, our reporter in Nigeria is prepared to file a FOI request with the National Communications Commission; last time we filed a request with that agency, they did not acknowledge it, and we unfortunately missed the appeals window….” He raised what he called some burning questions about the application of FOI. The questions include: Why are so many Ministries, Departments, and Agencies silent when FOI requests arrive? Why has no public institution been sanctioned for violating the law? Why are citizens still forced to go to court for basic budgetary or project information? Why do some state governments still behave as though the FOI Act does not apply to them—even after the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise?
He advised that the gathering must ensure that the ongoing amendment process of the Act at the National Assembly does not turn out to make the law a weaker instrument of democratic growth. “We cannot afford to create a regime that criminalises requesters or empowers gatekeepers with discretionary vetoes. Instead, we must strengthen the enabling environment for compliance, provide clarity on sanctions for defaulting institutions,” he said.
Edeatan Ojo of the Media Rights Agenda, who spoke on the gaps in FOI implementation, said that though the law in its present state is regarded as relatively good, it still contains some manifest weaknesses. He said that the law had received global attention with no fewer than 140 countries operating the law in one form or the other. He said the Global Right to Information (RTI) Rating platform, which analyses the quality of the world’s access to information laws, ranked the Nigerian law as 64, with a score of 88 points out of a maximum possible score of 150, adding that the ingredients that make up the score include the strength of national legal frameworks, the methodology and the best practices at the national level. Incidentally, the Nigerian law ranks below some of the countries in Africa, as Ojo submitted that some of the countries, even in West Africa, rank among the top 10 in the global rating. The FOI law of the Gambia, 2021, with 128 points, was rated number six in the global rating, while the Liberian Freedom of Information Act, 2010, was listed as No. 10 with a score of 123 points, he said. Other countries with better ratings than Nigeria include Sierra Leone at No. 11, South Sudan at No. 12, Tunisia at No. 15, South Africa occupying No. 16, and Namibia, which occupies number 17 in the global rating. This submission completely indicates that the Nigerian situation demands reforms that are not only urgent but imperative.
Ojo said of the Nigerian situation: “Our major undoing is the fact that we do not have an independent administrative appeals mechanism or administrative sanctions. The Law also does not place responsibility on any institution or body to promote the Act to ensure public awareness.”
Interestingly, the communique released after the Abuja session acknowledged the need for the establishment of “a robust administrative sanctions framework,” aside from the need for budgetary empowerment for Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) at the state and federal levels to aid training of officers and implementation procedures of the Act.
As we continue to periscope the way forward for democratic practice in Nigeria and Africa, strengthening the FOI Act and its implementation with every energy at our disposal will aid that search most positively.
