Court Awards N500, 000 Damages To CSJ In Suit Against FCT Minister

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and presided over by Justice Zainab Bage Abubakar has awarded a N500, 000 damages against the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory for denying the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) access to information requested.

CSJ who is the applicant in the suit with number FHC/ABJ/CS/1212/2020 had on 20th November, 2020 sued the Minister of FCT and the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Capital Territory Administration seeking for a declaration that denying the them access to the details of documentation evidencing that the sum of N393,254,000.00 has been remitted to the Consolidated Revenue Fund Account of the Federal Government (CRF) in accordance with the 2017 audit recommendations being unauthorised expenditure made to various security agencies during the year without supporting documents to show actual beneficiary security agencies and which further examination of records revealed that there was no provision for such payments in the FCTA Appropriation Act for the year without explanation constitutes an infringement of their right guaranteed and protected by section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011.

CSJ also asked the court to declare that the continued refusal of the Respondents to grant to them access to the information sought, without explanation constitutes an infringement of their right guaranteed and protected by Section 48 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2007.

The Applicant therefore asked the court for an Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to grant to the Applicant access to the information sought.

The court while granting the reliefs sought by CSJ held that under the Section 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, where a public institution considers that the application should be denied, the institution shall give written notice to the Applicant that access to all or part of the information will not be granted, stating reasons for the denial, and the Section of this Act under which the denial is made.

“Now, guided by the above provisions, when the Applicant requested for the information from the 1st Respondent vide Exhibit “B” attached to the Affidavit in Support of the instant application, the 1st Respondent has a public duty to make available the information to the Applicant within 7days, and where the Respondent has, no such records or information, it should transfer the request to the institution with greater interest in the subject matter of the request. That is the institution that possesses the information requested.

“Furthermore, even where the 1st Respondent considers that the application or request for information should be denied, it shall give written notice to the Applicant that access to all or part of the information will not be granted, stating reasons for the denial, and the Section of the Act under which the denial is made. Therefore, the option is not for the1st Respondent to ignore the Applicant’s request which it did in the instant case. As I have stated above, by the provisions of Section 4 of the FOIA, the1st Respondent who is in custody of the information requested by the Applicant has a public duty to make available the information requested which it has refused to make available on demand by the Applicant.

“That being the case, the Applicant has the right to seek for an Order of Mandamus to compel the said Respondent to carry out such duty. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Applicant has, in my view, established good grounds to be entitled to the grant of the reliefs sought. Accordingly, reliefs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are granted the Applicant as prayed.

“In respect of relief (e), the sum of N500, 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira only) is granted the Applicant as damages against each of the Respondents for denying the Applicant access to the information requested,” the court held.