The court ordered the Delta State governor Sheriff Oborevwori to “disclose details of budgetary allocations and actual spending by the Okowa government between 2015 and 2019, including specific projects carried out to improve primary education in Delta State, and the locations of such projects.”
The judgment was delivered by Honourable Justice Daniel Osiagor, following a Freedom of Information suit number: FHC/L/CS/803/2019, brought by Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
In his judgment, Justice Osiagor held that, “SERAP has cognisable legal right to inquire and know the way and manner public institutions manage public funds. I must say that every citizen has a duty to demand transparency and accountability in governance of public institutions.”
Justice Osiagor also stated that: “Why should a request for details of disbursement and spending of public funds between 2015-2019 by Delta State be a cause of litigation for four years? Public officials are fast developing a state of anomie and cold feet when confronted with requests for audit reports of public duties and budgets.”
Justice Osiagor ordered the Delta State government to “disclose how the Okowa government spent over N7.28 billion received from UBEC between 2015 and 2017, and N213 billion received from the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC) in 2018, at an average of N17.8 billion monthly.”
Read Also: N’ Assembly under siege by hoodlums, Akpabio raises the alarm
SERAP’s suit followed the case of seven-year-old Success Adegor, who was sent home because her parents could not pay the illegal school fee/levy of N900, and the poor-quality of her Okotie-Eboh Primary School 1. Miss Success had, in a viral video in March 2019 said, “No be say I no go pay, dem go flog, flog, flog, dem go tire.”
Justice Osiagor ordered the government to “disclose details of the primary schools that have benefited from the projects carried out on access to free and quality primary education in Delta State, and information on indirect costs, including uniforms, exercise books, and transport costs to students and their parents.”
Justice Osiagor also ordered the government to “disclose specific details of the steps Delta State Government is taking to improve the overall welfare of children in primary schools across Delta State, including details of the government’s fee-free programme, if any, across primary schools in Delta State.”
Justice Osiagor dismissed all the objections raised by the Delta State Government, Universal Basic Education Commission [UBEC] and the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board and upheld SERAP’s arguments. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favour of SERAP against the three respondents.
Justice Osiagor’s judgment dated 17 July 2023, read in part: “SERAP’s application cures so much disinformation in the public space. The request by SERAP falls within the categories of records accessible by the public.”
“However, public institutions are becoming increasingly hysterical upon any request served on them for information bordering on accountability.”
“The arguments of the Delta State government and the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB) that the Freedom of Information Act applies to only Federal Government officials cannot be sustained as public institutions are defined in Section 31 of the Interpretation section to include State institutions.”
“Besides, any State Freedom of Information Law that runs contrary to the Federal legislation to the extent of the inconsistency shall be void. See Section 4(5) of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 [as amended]. The National Assembly’s legislative powers are for the peace, order, and good government of Nigeria.”
“The Delta State government’s reliance on the Delta State Freedom of Information Law, 2019 is inappropriate in this case. The retrospective application of the Delta State piece of legislation is hollow as it cannot divest the vested rights of SERAP.”
“The Freedom of Information Act was the only piece of legislation applying to Delta prior to the filing of this suit by SERAP by the doctrine of covering the field. I am not unmindful of the concurrent powers of legislation between the Federal and State legislatures. There is therefore no feature depriving this court of jurisdiction.”
“Besides, the Delta State procedural step is inapplicable as it was not in existence when this cause of action arose. I therefore hold that SERAP has effectively triggered the application of the Freedom of Information Act by their letters of April 2019 placing demands for information from the Delta State government.”
“The Freedom of Information Act is a liberalised piece of legislation that does not place a burden on an Applicant but rather on the contrary places a burden on the public institution/official that the request is forwarded to. See Section 1[2] of the Act which provides: ‘an applicant under this Act needs not demonstrate any specific interest.”
“The piece of legislation therefore clothed SERAP with the firm ground to apply and demand the Delta State government to within 7 days respond to the request. For all I have been postulating herein, I find merit in the application by SERAP and grant all the reliefs as sought.”
“The Delta State government and the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board neither responded to the letters by SERAP nor complied with the demands, hence this action for mandamus to compel them under the Freedom of Information Act.”
“SERAP’s action, therefore, puts the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to a litmus test regarding the right of an NGO to seek and obtain information from the public archives or records.”
“The Freedom of Information Act should be commendable in this Democratic dispensation as its implementation becomes a derivative action underpinning Section 39 of the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 [as amended] of the freedom of expression and holding opinions.”
“In the letter dated 29 July 2023 sent to Governor Sheriff Oborevwori on the judgment, and signed by SERAP deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization said, “We note your stated commitment in your inaugural speech ‘to deliver good governance to our people.’ We therefore urge you to immediately obey and respect the judgment of the Court.”
SERAP’s letter, read in part: “We urge you to invite the former State governor Ifeanyi Okowa and to direct the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board to explain the spending of the education funds and to immediately compile and disclose the spending details of the funds as ordered by the court.”
“By immediately complying with the judgment, your government will be sending a powerful message to politicians and others that they will be held to account even when out of office.”
Mr Okowa was the vice-presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2023 general elections. Joined as defendants in the suit are the Universal Basic Education Commission [UBEC] and the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB).
Justice Osiagor granted the following orders of mandamus:
1. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is hereby made directing and compelling the Delta State Governor and Delta State government to provide SERAP with the following information:
(a) Details of budgetary allocations and actual spending by Delta State Government between 2015 and 2019, including specific projects carried out to improve access to free and quality primary education in Delta State, the locations of such projects and the primary schools that have benefited from the projects.
(b) Specific details of the steps Delta State Government is taking to improve the overall welfare of children in primary schools across Delta State.
(c) Details of Delta State Government’s fee-free programme, if any, across primary schools in the Delta State and information on indirect costs, including uniforms, exercise books, and transport costs to students and their parents.
[d] Details of specific projects by Delta State Government to improve access to education for children with disabilities.2. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is hereby made directing and compelling the Universal Basic Education Commission [UBEC] to provide SERAP with the following information:
(a) Details of disbursement and administration of Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) funds disbursed through the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board to the Delta State Government.
(b) Details of reports, if any, made to UBEC by the Delta State Government on specific projects carried out to ensure improvement of access to free and quality primary education in Delta State between 2015 and 2019, the locations of such projects and the primary schools that have benefited from the projects.
(c) Specific details of the steps the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) is taking to ensure improvement of the overall welfare of children in primary schools across Delta State.
(d) Details of specific projects by the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) to ensure improvement of access to education for children with disabilities in Delta State.
3. AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is hereby made directing and compelling the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board to provide SERAP with the following information:
(a) Details of disbursement and administration of Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) funds disbursed through the Delta State Universal Basic Education Board to the Delta State Government and actual spending of the State Government on primary school education monitored by the Board between 2015 and 2019, including specific projects carried out to improve access to free and quality primary education in Delta State, the locations of such projects and the primary schools that have benefited from the projects.
(b) Specific details of the steps the Board is taking to ensure improvement of the overall welfare of children in primary schools across Delta State.
(c) Details of Delta State’s fee-free programme, if any, across primary schools in the state and information on indirect costs, including uniforms, exercise books, and transport costs to students and their parents.
(d) Details of specific projects by the Board to ensure improvement of access to education for children with disabilities.
The Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel has directed all the parties to appear before it tomorrow to adopt their final briefs of argument.
The court, in a notice it sent to the parties, invited them to adopt their written address with respect to the petition that was lodged against President Tinubu by a former Vice President and candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, as well as the one that was filed by the candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) had on March 1 announced that Tinubu of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) won the presidential election held on February 25, ahead of 17 other candidates that participated in the contest.
Tinubu was recorded as having scored 8,794,726 votes to defeat the two major contenders, Atiku of the PDP, who came second with a total of 6,984,520 votes, and LP’s Obi, who came third with 6,101,533 votes.
However, dissatisfied with the outcome of the election, both Atiku and Obi approached the court to invalidate it.
The duo, in their separate petitions, claimed that they won the presidential poll, even as they challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the election.
Aside from praying the court to declare that President Tinubu did not secure the majority of lawful votes that were cast at the election, the petitioners are also seeking the withdrawal of the Certificate of Return (CoR) that was issued to him by INEC.
Alternatively, they are praying the court to order a fresh presidential election, with the exclusion of President Tinubu whom they argued was ab-initio, not qualified to participate in the poll.
The Electoral Act 2022 made it mandatory for candidates that were aggrieved by the outcome of the election, to within 21 days after the result was declared by INEC, file a petition before the court which shall deliver its judgment in writing within 180 days.
Obi closed his case after he called 13 witnesses that testified and tendered several documentary exhibits. Atiku produced 27 witnesses and equally tendered exhibits before the court.
On their part, both INEC and President Tinubu wrapped up their defence in both cases with one witness each, while the APC failed to produce any witness before the court.
However, all the Respondents, in their respective written addresses, urged the court to dismiss all the petitions for want of merit.
They argued that the petitioners were unable to discharge the burden of proof that was placed on them by the law.
According to the respondents, whereas the petitioners raised allegations that had elements of crime in them, they, however, failed to prove them beyond reasonable doubt as required by the law.
President Tinubu urged the court to hold that he was validly returned as winner of the election, by the INEC.
Specifically, Atiku, in the joint petition he filed with his party, marked: CA/PEPC/05/2023, maintained that the declaration of Tinubu as the winner of the presidential election was “invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act, 2022”, insisting that he “was not duly elected by the majority of lawful votes cast at the election”.
He told the court that Tinubu, who was cited as the 2nd Respondent, “was at the time of the election not qualified to contest.”
Respondents also equally challenged Tinubu’s eligibility to contest the presidential election, alleging that he was previously indicted and fined the sum of $460,000.00 by the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Case No: 93C 4483, for an offence involving dishonesty and drug trafficking.
On the ground that the election was invalid because of corrupt practices and non-compliance with the provision of the Electoral Act, 2022, the petitioners argued that INEC acted in breach of its own Regulations and Guidelines.
The Petitioners contended that the electoral body was in the course of the conduct of the presidential poll, mandatorily required to prescribe and deploy technological devices for the accreditation, verification, continuation and authentication of voters and their particulars as contained in its Regulations.
Though five petitions were initially filed to nullify Tinubu’s election, however, the Action Alliance (AA) on May 8, withdrew its case, even as the Action Peoples Party, APP, followed suit two days later by also discontinuing further proceedings on its own petition.
The Allied Peoples Movement, APM, which refused to withdraw its own petition, had on July 14, adopted its final written address, even as the court reserved its judgment on the petition.
The APM, in its petition marked: CA/PEPC/04/2023, argued that the withdrawal of Mr. Ibrahim Masari who was initially nominated as the Vice-Presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, invalidated Tinubu’s candidacy in view of Section 131(c) and 142 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended.
The party argued that there was a gap of about three weeks between the period that Masari, who was listed as the 5th Respondent in the petition, expressed intention to withdraw, the actual withdrawal of his purported nomination, and the time Tinubu purportedly replaced him with Senator Kashim Shettima.
It further argued that Tinubu’s candidature had elapsed as at the time he nominated Shettima as Masari’s replacement.
