By Usman Aliyu

When Peace Oladipo, a Nigerian freelance journalist, sent a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Kwara Ministry of Justice in mid-2024, she did not expect to be stonewalled.

Oladipo was investigating the case of an abandoned courthouse in Afon, Asa Local Government Area of the state, where funds had reportedly been allocated but the building was still in disrepair.

Seeking accountability, she asked for records of disbursements and implementation; however, her request was rejected.

The ministry, through a letter signed by one of its Principal Counsels, B. O. Banigbe, responded that the FOI Act 2011 upon which the request was made, did not apply in the state and more so, the ministry was not aware of the mentioned projects.

The rejection of Oladipo’s FOI request highlights a troubling and general gap in transparency and accountability in some states, where authorities continue to cite the non-domestication of the Freedom of Information Act as a basis for denying access to public records.

The response stifled a key part of Oladipo’s investigation and was forced to restructure her story; this denial left a lasting impression, which was not just about an abandoned courthouse, but about a broken public trust.

“I could not trace the contractor; I could not confirm if the allocated funds were enough, misused, or mismanaged. The absence of that data made it impossible to hold the right actors accountable.

“I could not even identify who to hold accountable; was it the contractor, the accountant or the ministry?  Without access to basic financial records, I was left chasing shadows,” she said.

Oladipo’s experience is not an isolated case; Dare Akogun, a multimedia journalist with Sobi FM in Ilorin, faced similar hurdles in 2020 while probing school renovations across the state. Akogun’s request, aimed at uncovering contract processes and budget details, was rejected on the same grounds.

“The government said FOI is not domesticated in Kwara,” he explained.

Fortunately, Akogun later obtained documents from civil society organisations, and physical site visits, which allowed him to complete the story.

In a turn of events, he said the government, however, released some of the initially requested information to respond to his publication, about a month after the FoI request was declined, a belated, but an indirect validation of his findings.

For Adisa Jaji Azeez of Informant247, the consequences were more stifling.

In July 2021, he sought the report of the Justice Adewara-led panel investigating mismanagement of local government funds; the government replied only once, saying the request was awaiting the governor’s approval.

Four years later, he has yet to receive any further communication.

“The prolonged silence stalled my investigation entirely; without access to the panel’s report, I couldn’t obtain the evidence to substantiate the claims central to my story. As a result, I couldn’t proceed with the report,” Azeez said.

However, Yemi Sodiq, an investigative journalist, also, with Informant247, shared a mixed experience with the requests made to the state ministries.

While the Ministry of Communications responded to inquiries about the Ilorin Visual Arts Centre, the Ministry of Energy ignored requests concerning the multimillion-naira failed Light Up-Kwara project, initiated by the immediate past government under former Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed.

“The request to the Ministry of Energy bothered on the multimillion-naira Light Up Kwara project; the project was awarded by the administration of Abdulfatah Ahmed, which ended in 2019.

“But when approached about the project in 2023, the Kwara Commissioner for Energy, Mr Abdulganiyu Abdulazeez, asked The Informant247 to write an inquiry letter through the ministry’s press secretary.

“About two weeks after submitting the letter, the press secretary contacted The Informant247 through a WhatsApp call, saying the commissioner said he couldn’t grant an interview on the subject of the letter because he just came on board.

“Meanwhile, as of the time of responding, the commissioner had spent over a month in the office,” he said.

Similarly, a freelance journalist, Abdulrasheed Hammad, faced bureaucratic delays and eventual denial when seeking details on COVID-19 funds disbursed to Kwara in Nov. 2020.

Hammad approached the state Ministry of Finance and Planning with the letter initiated by the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR), requesting for information about the N1 billion shares of the state as well as another N100 Million from the REDISS (World Bank) programme disbursed as Covid-19 support for the state.

When the reporter returned to the ministry on Dec. 3, 2020, he was handed a letter, which contained “the Freedom of Information Act has not been domesticated in Kwara.

Olarewaju Kikelomo, who signed the letter on behalf of the commissioner, said the legal input of the state’s ministry of justice indicated that the FOIA did not have an automatic application to states, and concluded that the document for the details on how Covid-19 fund was spent could not be released.

Meanwhile, as of the time, there were two conflicting Court of Appeal judgments on the matter.

While the Benin division of the court ruled that the Act did not apply to states, its Akure counterpart averred that the applicability of the FoI Act 2011 was to all states of the federation.

According to the FOI Act 2011, any Nigerian can request access to public records by submitting a written application—either by hand, post, email, or other official means—to a government agency or public institution.

The request, the Act stipulates, must clearly describe the information sought and include the requester’s contact details, with reason for the request required.

Upon receipt, the institution is legally obliged to respond within seven working days, either by granting access, issuing a denial with reasons, or transferring the request to the appropriate agency.

The Act allows for an extension of up to 10 days if third-party information is involved. While there are no application fees, institutions may charge for reproducing documents.

If a request is denied, the applicant has the right to seek redress through the courts, as provided under Section 20 of the Act.

Nonetheless, an online report as of 2023 indicates that only 91 out of approximately 800 public institutions (about 11.4 per cent) have complied with the FOI Act by submitting annual reports to the Attorney General of the Federation, as mandated by Section 29 of the Act.

According to the report, some of the institutions that are non-compliant with the Act include, the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC) now Nigerian Tourism Development Authority (NTDA); Nigerian Airspace Management Agency, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), Radiographers Registration Council, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), National Primary Healthcare Development Agency and Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

In the same vein, The 2024 FOI Compliance Report, following the assessment of 245 Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) under the Federal Government shows that only 1.22 per cent were fully proactive in disclosing information, 6.94 per cent were partially proactive, and a significant 91.84 per cent were non-proactive.

The assessment report explained that the MDAs were assessed based on three main criteria: proactive disclosure, responsiveness to information requests, and the overall level of information disclosure.

These three parameters accounted for 100 points—60 points for proactive disclosure, 20 points for responsiveness, and 20 points for the level of disclosure.

Though the data of FOI compliance by state agencies is unavailable, the rate of disregard for this law is not so much different from the federal agencies, according to the journalists interviewed.

The importance of access to information cannot be overstated.

According to Prof. Abdullateef Alagbonsi, Founder and Coordinator, Elites Network for Sustainable Development (ENetSuD), without access to information, citizens cannot hold governments accountable for public spending, contracts, and policy decisions.

As such, he said, lack of transparency could lead to corruption and mismanagement of public funds.

ENetSuD, one of the few Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Kwara, has written several FoI requests without success.

The coordinator explained, “ENetSuD is not just advocating for access to information; we are actively requesting and tracking how public funds are used in Kwara.

“We have written over 200 FOI requests to MDAs in Kwara and followed up with lawsuits where necessary; despite repeated rejections on the grounds that the FOI Act has not been domesticated in Kwara, we remain undeterred.”

Alagbonsi recalled that though the organisation entered into a social audit agreement with the state government under which it was allowed to track and assess many projects; the agreement, he noted, did not work for long before it collapsed.

“We also use physical inspections, citizen feedback, and social audits to verify the implementation of projects; this strategy has exposed several abandoned and substandard projects. But we are still hampered by lack of transparency and cooperation from government offices,” he said.

Meanwhile, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights understands the importance of access to information. Article 19 of the declaration guarantees everyone’s right to freedom of opinion and expression.

This right, the article notes, includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

This is also corroborated in Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended. Stemming from these understandings, the National Assembly in 2011, enacted the FOI Act, aimed to promote transparency by granting citizens, including journalists, the right to access public records. However, its implementation at the state level has been contentious.

Some states argued that the Act required domestication to be enforceable within their jurisdictions.  This stance has led to inconsistent application across Nigeria.

Of the 36 states in the country, available records show only Delta, Ekiti and Lagos have passed the law.

In Kwara, the FOI Bill was passed by the outgoing 8th Assembly on May 30, 2019, and transmitted the bill to Gov. AbdulRahman AbdulRasaq, who just assumed office, a day earlier, for assent.

The governor, however, returned the bill to the 9th Assembly for some amendments.

In a letter read by the Speaker, Danladi Salihu, at plenary on July 23, 2019, the governor requested for minor amendments to sections 4, 5(1), 6 and 10 before his assent to the bill.

The governor, who commended the bill’s potential to boost transparency, accountability, and proper record-keeping in the letter, however, recommended extension of response window from seven to fourteen days in Sections 4, 5(1), and 6.

He also called for stiffer penalties under Section 10, suggesting an increase in the fine from N100,000 to N500,000 while retaining the two-year jail term.

However, this provision contradicts the section 7(5) and 10 of the 2011 FOI act. The law originally prescribes N500, 000 fines against government officials who wrongfully deny access to public information, and one year jail term for any public officer who wilfully destroys public information.

The Speaker referred the bill to the House Committee on Information, Youth, Sport, Culture & Tourism chaired by Awolola Ayokunle and its Committee on Ethics, Privileges & Judiciary to initiate the amendment requested by the governor.

But six years later, the committee did not take any action on the bill, which led to its permanent death in the KWHA.

All efforts to get the speaker to explain the reason for abandoning the bill proved abortive.

Alagbonsi, who led ENetSuD on several advocacy visits to the state parliament, bemoaned the action of the lawmakers.

Backing the concerns raised by ENetSuD’s founder, renowned human rights lawyer and FOI expert, President Aigbokhan, said the persistent denial of access to information poses a grave threat to good governance, particularly at the state level, where resistance to the implementation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011 remained entrenched.

Aigbokhan, who led the landmark legal battle against the Edo State Agency for the Control of AIDS (EDOSACA) after it rejected a legitimate FOI request by civil society groups, said such refusals not only flouted the law but also set a dangerous precedent that no right-thinking society should tolerate.

“When public institutions slam the door on citizens seeking information, what they’re really doing is shutting out accountability; it creates a culture of secrecy and impunity that cripples democracy at its core.”

He warned that unless access to public records was treated as a civic right and not a privilege, the struggle for transparency and people-driven governance would continue to face setbacks.

In the recent landmark judgment however, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act passed by the National Assembly in 2011 applies to all 36 states of the federation, regardless of domestication.

The verdict has been widely celebrated as a turning point in Nigeria’s transparency journey.

Described as “historic and transformational”, Alagbonsi said the verdict ended years of legislative and executive stonewalling.

“No public institution in any state, including Kwara, can now claim immunity from FOI compliance.”

He hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for transparency and participatory governance.

However, just as civil society groups and journalists prepared to test compliance with the ruling, the governor forwarded a fresh FOI bill to the State House of Assembly on May 14.

Surprisingly, Section 31 (1-2) of the bill stipulates that, “Notwithstanding any provision of this law, no information shall be made available to any applicant without the prior consent of the Governor in writing.

“No one acting pursuant to this Law shall be liable in any way if non compliance with sections 4, 5 or 6 is due to delay in the Governor granting his consent.”

This development raised eyebrows, with many viewing it as a strategic attempt to dilute or delay the application of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Salihu announced the receipt of the bill titled Kwara State Freedom of Information Bill 2025 during plenary on May 13 and subsequently referred it to the House Committee on Business and Rules for scheduling.

Reacting to this move, prominent human rights lawyer Aigbokhan called it “misplaced, unnecessary,” and a wasted effort, arguing that the supreme court had already clarified the legal position.

“The judgment explicitly states that where the National Assembly enacts a law on a matter in the concurrent list, any state law on the same matter is null and void.

“This new bill is redundant and may only serve to undermine compliance,” he said.

Interestingly, the state assembly on May 21 passed the bill within seven days of its introduction, in what observers described as the fastest legislative consideration of the 10th Assembly, notwithstanding the outright rejection of the contentious Section 31 by the majority of the stakeholders at the public hearing.

Dare Akogun, as a journalist who had been a victim of FOI request rejection in the state, described the passage as an attempt to muzzle transparency, claiming that Section 31 had defeated the very essence of the FOI Act.

“It places a political gatekeeper between citizens and the information they have a legal right to access. It could also slow down or outrightly block access to data as it affects public expenditure, government contracts, and even environmental or health-related concerns,” he said.

For Aigbokhan, he cautioned journalists and CSOs not to challenge the exercise, but rather to make requests to the state government’s Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) based on the FOI Act 2011 and not the state law.

If the requests are refused, the FOI lawyer said, the head of the MDA could be charged for contempt of court or sued under the FOI Act 2011.

Meanwhile, to test the judgment of the apex court, ENetSuD on April 29 initiated FOI requests to eight MDAs in the state.

The MDAs were the Ministries of Works; Health; Energy; Business, Innovation, and Technology; Agriculture; Water Resources; as well as the State Universal Basic Education Board (SUBEB); and the Social Investment Programme (KWASSIP).

Lanre Osho, ENetSuD’s Deputy Coordinator (Projects Tracking), said the MDAs executed physical projects; hence they were asked to provide yearly information on the list of executed projects.

Other information requested, he said, included the amount annually budgeted for each project; the actual amount released for each project; the detailed information of the contractors the projects were awarded to; and the exact amount released to each project contractor amongst others.

None of the MDAs responded at the deadline of the statutory seven day provided by the Act.

“It is worthy of note that none of the MDAs of the KWSG responded officially to ENetSuD’s FOl request, whether to grant access to the requested information or to decline access,” Osho said.

However, Alagbonsi insisted that his NGO would continue to send FOI requests to MDAs in the state under the 2011 Act, urging journalists, CSOs and individuals to disregard the law enacted by the state assembly.

“The judgment of the Supreme Court is very clear; when there are federal and state laws on the same matter, the federal law is subsisting and binding, and the state law will remain ineffective on the same matter to the extent of its inconsistency,” he said.

Similarly, Mr Lanre Arogundade, Executive Director, International Press Centre (IPC), said the action of the state government was inconsistent with the federal Act, which the apex court resolved, applied to all states.

Arogundade, a renowned journalist and FOI advocate, described the action of the government as not only unacceptable, null and void, but offensive.

“What is really offensive is the provision that only the Governor can give consent before information is released,” he said.

Arogundade said that the action of the government indicated that there would be no transparency in its dealings.

He, nonetheless, encouraged CSOs and journalists who might want to exercise their right under the FOI Act, to remain steadfast and know that they were on the right path.(NANFeatures)

***If used, please credit the writer and the News Agency of Nigeria.

This reporting was completed with the support of the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development, CJID.