THE FEDERAL High Court in Abuja has awarded a fine of N500, 000 against Abuja Electricity Distribution Company (AEDC) over its failure to furnish a lawyer, Festus Onifade, with information requested in line with provisions of Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, 2011.
Justice Gladys Olotu, in a judgement, held that the refusal of the AEDC to furnish the Onifade and the co-applicant with the information in its custody was wrongful, unlawful and unconstitutional.
Justice Olotu, who said she found merit in the applicants’ application, also made an order compelling the company to furnish them with the information requested for in their letter dated 18th Jan. 18, 2023, within seven days of the order of the court.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the applicants; Onifade, suing for himself and on behalf of Coalition of Nigeria Consumers, as 1st and 2nd applicants, had instituted the case.
The motion on notice was filed on Feb. 22, 2023, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 5, 7 and 20 of FoI Act, Order 34, Rule (1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, Section 76(12) of the Electric Power Sector Reform Act and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
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.
Giving six grounds, Onifade and his co-applicant averred that they made the request for information from AEDC under the FoI Act, 2011.
They said AEDC, in its letter dated Jan. 24, 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, and that the rules of the court provides for such application.
They said it would be in the interest of justice to grant the application
The AEDC, in its counter affidavit dated May 24, 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 received) 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 naira being sought against the respondent is unwarranted as the Freedom of Information Act has not been breached by the respondent,” it said.
Delivering the judgment on Sept. 23, the certified true copy of which was made available to NAN on Monday, Justice Olotu resolved all the issues in favour of Onifade and Coalition of Nigeria Consumers.
“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% equity in the respondent company, while 60% 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% 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 ot 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. I hereby resolve this issue in favour of the applicants and against the respondent” the judge declared.
Justice 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.
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 a stay of execution of the court judgment.
“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)
