FRESH FACTS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

BY OKOI OBONO-OBLA

I was aghast when I read in the media about the arrest, arraignment and incarceration of the chairman of the editorial board of the Fresh Facts newspapers, Sam Asowata, on the order of the governor of Akwa Ibom State, Godswill Akpabio over the publication of story exposing a housing scam, which the governor was allegedly deeply involved, running into billions of naira.

In a reminiscence of the hey days of military dictatorship, Mr. Asowata was arrested in his office in Abuja with his daughter, by a contingent of well armed police officers and taken to Akwa Ibom State and immediately arraigned before a chief magistrate's court in Uyo on a charge of publication of seditious article with the intent to cause disaffection. Mr. Asowata was denied bail by the magistrate and ordered to be remanded in custody. The Akwa Ibom state government, obsessed with vengeance through its attorney-general filed a civil action in the High Court, Uyo, against the Fresh Facts.

I wondered aloud how a governor, who is a lawyer, and his attorney-general, would readily exhume a law (sedition) which was effectively laid to rest more than 24 (twenty-fours) ago by the then Federal Court of Appeal in a remarkable decision in the case of Arthur Nwankwo v. The State. Arthur Nwankwo, a radical politician, Writer and member of the left wing Peoples Redemption Party had published an acidic and ferocious critique of the government of the old Anambra State under the leadership of Jim Nwobodo, alleging mindless corruption and bad governance against the governor and his cohorts. He was arrested and charged to court. He was found guilty of sedition by a High Court and sentenced to jail. On appeal, the Federal Court of appeal set aside the conviction and declared that the section 50 of the criminal code which makes the seditious publication a criminal offence was at variance with the right of Freedom of expression and the press enshrined in the then 1979 constitution.

It is indeed a sad commentary that the learned attorney- general of Akwa Ibom State could not professionally advise the governor that charging a journalist for an offence founded under the law of sedition, is against the spirit and intendment of the constitution which he had sworn to preserve and protect when he became governor of Akwa Ibom State.

It shows that most professionals in government in this country hardly allow the professional dictates of their calling to reflect on the quality of advice they give. This attitude and mindset of professionals in the public service pandering to the whims and caprices of their appointers rather than being guided by professionalism, has invariably to do with the general belief that appointment in the public service is a passport and, indeed, an avenue for quick enrichment and personal aggrandisement. This is why public officials in the government hardly resign their appointments, even when they disagree with the policy direction and thrust of the government. It is a shame that the attorney-general of Akwa Ibom State would quickly rush to the court and exhume an archaic and anachronistic piece of legislation designed by the colonialists who held sway at the hey days of colonialism in these shores to stem the rising tide of nationalism fired by the change brought about the aftermath of the second World War.

The harassment and intimidation of the press and journalists in Akwa Ibom State by a governor whose legitimacy is still the subject of an intense legal challenge in the Court of Appeal, is a clear signal to a critical segment of the civil society that dictatorship is on the rise and would stop at nothing to ensure that the whole society tilts towards docility and timidity, and that people should think twice before deciding to express an alternative view point.

It is sad that a government supposedly founded on the rule of law and constitutionalism could readily resort to gestapo tactics to drive under ground dissenting segment of the civil society. Little wonder the South- South region has seen little development despite the huge amounts of money at the disposal of these governors. It is in the South-South that one will find the crudest and most authoritarian of governors who behave and carry on as a potentate to whom the people must genuflect. As we continue to forge ahead, it will be necessary to sound a note of caution to these governors to realise that they just have to tread softly and carefully. The governors have a stake in ensuring that democratic culture is fostered in the country; it is in their interest to so do.

To this end, the principles of separation of powers must be respected. There must also be an absolute respect for fundamental human rights, particularly the rights to freedom of association; and freedom of thought, conscience and expression. The governors must appreciate the unassailable fact that these rights are observed and practiced because the people voted them into office.

They are therefore, at all times, accountable to the people who gave them their mandate to leadership. They must be less magisterial and imperial in all their dealings and actions, otherwise they will lose the good will of the people and whether they like it or not, they could be voted out of office in 2011. Any Governor who thinks that he can hold the people in contempt because he can rig himself into power in 2011 in a phantom election had better think twice.

It is clear that the people are wiser and would never tolerate any phantom election where the votes of the people do not count. Anybody who wants to challenge the resolve of the people should take a cue from Kenya and other abundant evident lessons.

The inability to accommodate alternative views has seen state governors largely behaving as military administrators, reminiscent of the dark days of military dictatorship. In most of the states, opposition has been totally crippled so much so that the legislatures, which ought to be the constitutional watchdogs of these governors, are rendered otiose.

The desperate bid of governors to emasculate the legislative arm has seen most states having, a large turnout of impeachment of speakers of House of Assembly. As governors continue to show hostility to competing political view, they have further elevated the politics of exclusiveness, nepotism and cronyism to unprecedented heights. In almost all the states of the federation, the governors have seized total and absolute control of their party machinery.

By this arrangement, the political space is closed to all other competitors. Any attempt to challenge the status quo is met with the use of state apparatus to stifle it, and most often than not, in a very crude and brutal manner. This is civilian dictatorship. Dictatorship in any form or guise is bad. It is odious, whether it is wearing the military or civilian toga. The dictatorship of these governors has reached a ridiculous level, that media organs controlled by the states are used to practice a sort of personality cult seen in North Korea and the old Soviet Union.

These governors are so obsessed with the splendour and grandeur of power that less attention is invariably paid to the pressing needs of the people, such as good roads, healthcare and water, etc. These governors must understand that democracy is all about competition and disagreement; choices and options without which the beauty of democracy either fades away and or assumes a different name.



•Obono-Obla, a barrister and human rights activist, writes from Calabar, Cross River State. He is a member of the General Assembly of International Forum for Democracy and Peace .



This essay was published in the fresh facts newspaper & leadership newspaper in January, 2008

ELECTION IN UGEP, NIGERIA

The 2007 General Election held so much expectations and hope despite the pessimism in certain quarters that the election would be a farce taking into account the build up to it and the shoddy preparation by the Independent National Electoral Commission. The assurances by the Independent National Electoral Commission that there would be free and fair election was out rightly dismissed by the opposition parties and some sections of the civil society such as the media. I had no difficulty allying with the opposition in the Cross River State to demand for change of the Peoples Democratic Party State Government that has been in power for eight years, however, with nothing to show for. It was apparent that the PDP was heading for a crushing defeat in the event the election of 14th April 2007 is free and fair.

On the 10th April 2007, a senior friend who is a member of the PDP in my Local Government Area-Yakurr in Central Cross River State invited me to his house to show me a security report and the plan for action prepared by the PDP for the 14th April 2007. In the report and plan I was clearly identified as one of the persons that must be neutralized if the PDP must realize its plan to use intimidation, fraud, violence and cheating to win the election in Yakurr. It was a minus that democracy would once again be subverted by the PDP as they brazenly did in 2003. My home town Ugep was perceived by the PDP as the ‘centre of opposition.’ Rumour and speculation was rife that I will be physically attacked by some people recruited by local PDP leaders peeved by my alacrity before or on the day of the election.

On 13th April 2007, I woke up with so much optimism especially when President Olusegun Obasanjo went on radio and television to promise that the Police would do every thing to protect lives and properties and that the Independent National Electoral Commission was ready to organize, supervise and undertake a free and fair election. However, the signs of what 14th April 2007 will represent started manifesting in the afternoon of 13th April 2007 when I was attacked in the full glare of people by a gun man in my house. The gun man, a local youth who is notorious for his anti-social activities in the community operated with so much verve and gusto. He fired recklessly and indiscriminately into the air in front of my house. My wife, children, mother, brothers and sisters who were relaxing in the balcony of my house witnessed this lawlessness. I had to dash to the Police Station to report. On getting to the Police Station, I was asked to wait by the officers I met there for the Divisional Crime Officer. I waited for about thirty minutes despite the urgency of the matter. At a point I was frustrated because it appeared to me that the Police were employing delaying tactics. The Divisional Police Officer finally surfaced. He took my statement but said that the Police would investigate the report later. Before I left one of the Police Officers demanded that I gave him a sum of money to enable the Police come to the scene of the crime. I considered that outrageous and quickly left after telling him that I had no money to give. On getting to my house, what I saw shocked me. There was a gang of more than fifty youths armed with guns, machetes, cudgels etc. They were brandishing these lethal weapons, singing, chanting war songs. They were in a state of frenzy and left no one in doubt of their resolve to kill and maim. I was together with my family completely, totally and absolutely subjected to intense physically and mental torture and trauma from about 4pm until 3am by this mob who surrounded my house chatting, singing, beating drums and shooting sporadically. Before they left they sounded a note of warning that I dare no come out on the 14th April 2007 to exercise my franchise except I decided to vote for PDP. There was no election.

It was a complete farce and charade. It is sad. Election materials in my Ward-Ijiman in Ugep, headquarters of Yakurr Local Government Area were given to well known PDP Stalwarts and supporters such as Ubi Brown Ebali, Egom Ofem Ebri, Ubi Otu Ubi and conveyed in a brown Peugeot 504 Saloon Car owned by a PDP member from my ward. The number plate was removed. The car was surrounded by PDP supporters in their hundreds crying for the blood of any member or supporter of the other political party who dared to come out to exercise his right to vote. The polling booth right in front of my house was filled with PDP supporters who were frenetically thumb-printing on ballot papers. There were thugs everywhere shooting sporadically. The Police man, Sunday Onen, posted to maintain order in this polling booth was helpless indeed to the criminality taking place there in his full glare, more so as he was only armed with a baton and alone. What happened in my ward was generally replicated in the other three wards in Ugep and in neighboring communities in Yakurr. Nigerian democracy is seriously flawed. Why happened on 14th April 2007 does not inspire any glimmer of hope.

Nigeria is once again on the brink of a political volcano. We cannot any longer sweep every thing under the carpet and pretend for the sake of peace to allow this democracy succeeds. We must boldly and frontally condemn the acts of rigging by PDP. In 2003, there was a seemingly unanimous stand by all to close our eyes to the worrisome charges of rigging leveled against PDP at the 2003 elections. Today, the rigging is not only done in the open, but with careless abandon, with threats, intimidation and denial of people in the opposition exercising their constitutionally recognized franchise. This is ignoble and dirty and men and women of goodwill must arise and speak out.

•Okoi Obono-Obla, Human Rights Lawyer and Activist,

Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria. He is a member of the General Assembly of the International Forum for Democracy and peace.



*This essay was published by Leadership Newspaper in April, 2007. As preparation towards 2011 general election starts it is necessary to remind Nigerians the chaos that was the general election held in 2007.

MAJOR-GENERAL INDIA GARBA VS. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY, BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA


IN THE MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT MAKURDI

SUIT NO. MHC/388/2011



BETWEEN:

MAJOR GENERAL INDIA GARBA (RTD) - PLAINTIFF



AND



1. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTAINCY

MATTERS, BENUE STATE OF

NIGERIA

2. COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE,

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA DEFENDANTS

3. THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

4. ATTORNEY GENERAL &

COMMISSIONER OF JUSTICE,

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA



ORIGINATING SUMMONS PURSUANT TO ORDER 2 RULE 8 OF THE BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2007.



Let the COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS, BENUE STATE OF Nigeria; COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE, BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA; THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA AND ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA within Eight (8) days after the service of this summons, inclusive of the day of such service cause an appearance to be entered for him to this summons which is issued upon the application of MAJOR-GENERAL INDIA GARBA (RTD) OF ASOKORO,ABUJA, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria who claims to be entitled to the reliefs hereafter set out and for the determination of the following questions:



1. Whether by a true interpretation and construction of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 the Defendants are not obligated to allow the Plaintiff unfettered access to information concerning the allocation of revenue to Vandekiya Local Government Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts upon the Plaintiff’s application within seven (7) days?

2. Whether the refusal or failure of the Defendants to grant the application of the Plaintiff for access to information concerning the allocation of revenue to the Vandekiya Local Government Council of Benue State of Nigeria within seven (7) days of the receipt of same does not amount to an infringement of the provisions of Sections 5 (a) and 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra)?

3. Whether by a true interpretation and construction of the provisions of Section 8 (5) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) the Defendants are not entitled to pay a fine of N500, 000 (Five Thousand Naira) each for wrongful denial of the Plaintiff the right of access to Information sought?



The Plaintiff claims against the Defendants jointly and severally are as follows:

(1) A Declaration that the refusal, failure and or neglect by the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Defendants to release the information requested by the Plaintiff concerning the allocation of revenue to the Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts and expenditure of same amounts to a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) and therefore is wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional.

(2) A Declaration that the refusal, failure and or neglect by the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Defendants to release the information requested by the Plaintiff concerning the allocation of revenue to the Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts amounts to a violation of the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information, Act, 2011.

(3) A Declaration that by the true interpretation and construction of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) the Defendants as Public Institution within the meaning of Section 7 and 32 of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) are obligated to furnish on request by the Plaintiff a comprehensive, just, fair and detailed accounts of the amount of money allocated to the said Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts.

(4) A Mandatory Order of Injunction directing the Defendants including their servants, agents, privies, officials and or cohorts to furnish the Plaintiff with comprehensive and detailed information concerning the allocation of revenue from the Federation Accounts to the Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria and expenditure from January, 2010 to September, 2011 until Judgment is delivered in this case within 14 days of the delivery of Judgment.

(5) An Order of this Honourable directing the Defendants to pay a fine of N500, 000 (Five Thousand Naira) each for wrongful denial of the Plaintiff the right of access to Information sought.

(6) The costs of this Action.

(7) Any further order (s) as the Court may deem fit and proper to make in the circumstances of this case.



DATED THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011.



This summons was taken out by Chief Okoi O. Obono-Obla of Messrs Obono, Obono & Associates (Legal Practitioners & Consultants) Plot 1132 Festus Okotie Ebo Street, Utako District, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria and Legal Practitioners/Counsel (08033490404; 08033303287) to the above named Plaintiff.



The Defendant(s) may appear hereto by entering appearance personally or by Legal Practitioner either by handing in the appropriate forms duly completed at the Federal High Court Registry or by sending them to that office by post.



Note: If the Defendant does not enter appearance within the time and at the place above mentioned such orders will be made and proceedings may be taken as the Judge may think just and expedient



FOR SERVICE:

ON THE PLAINTIFF

C/O HIS COUNSEL

OBONO, OBONO & ASSOCIATES

PLOT 1132, FESTUS OKOTIE EBOH CRESCENT

UTAKO DISTRICT, ABUJA.



08033490404; 08035087322; 08033303287

tynaobla@yahoo.com;

okoi_advocate@yahoo.com



IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

IN THE MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT MAKURDI

SUIT NO.



BETWEEN:

MAJOR GENERAL INDIA GARBA (RTD) - PLAINTIFF



AND



1. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTAINCY

MATTERS, BENUE STATE OF

NIGERIA

2. COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE,

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA DEFENDANTS

3. THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

4. ATTORNEY GENERAL &

COMMISSIONER OF JUSTICE,

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA



AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

I, India Garba,Male, Adult, retired Major-General of the Nigerian Army and a Nigerian residing at Asokoro, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja do hereby make Oath and State as follows thus:

1. That I am the Plaintiff in this case and as such the facts of this case are within my personal knowledge save as otherwise stated.

2. That I know as a fact that the Defendants are Public Institutions of the Government of Benue State of Nigeria.

3. That I am an indigene of Vandekiya Local Government Area of Benue State of Nigeria.

4. That on or about the 25th July, 2011 I wrote an application to the Defendants that I be allowed access to information to the allocation of revenue from the Federation Accounts every month to the Vandekiya Local Government Area of Benue State of Nigeria.

5. That the said application dated the 15th July, 2011 was duly served on the Secretary of Vandekiya Local Government Area of Benue State of Nigeria and each and every one of the Defendants in this action.

6. That a copy of the said application which I requested for information concerning the monthly allocation released to the Vandeikya Local Government Area of Benue State from the Federation Accounts from 29th May, 2007 to date is attached herewith and marked as Exhibit AA.

7. That a copy of the acknowledgement of service of EMS Speed Post delivery of a copy of the application on each of the Defendants on the 19th July, 2011. The acknowledgment of service is attached herewith and marked as Exhibit BB.

8. That the Defendants have failed refused and neglected to reply to the said application.

9. That the Defendants have failed refused and or neglected to allow me access to the information sought within seven (7) days as provided by Law.

10. That unless the Defendants are compelled by an Order of this Honourable Court they will continue to refuse me access to the information sought by me from them.

11. That this affidavit is made in good faith conscientiously believing the facts contained herein to be true and correct in accordance with the Oaths Act, 2004.



------------------------

DEPONENT



Sworn to at the High Court Registry,

Makurdi, this ......... day of October,

2011.



BEFORE ME







COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS













IN THE HIGH COURT OF BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

IN THE MAKURDI JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT MAKURDI

SUIT NO.



BETWEEN:

MAJOR GENERAL INDIA GARBA (RTD) - PLAINTIFF



AND



1. COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL

GOVERNMENT & CHIEFTAINCY

MATTERS, BENUE STATE OF

NIGERIA

2. COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE,

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA DEFENDANTS

3. THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

4. ATTORNEY GENERAL &

COMMISSIONER OF JUSTICE,

BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA



WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPPORT OF ORIGINTING SUMMONS PURSUANT TO ORDER 31 RULE 1 OF THE BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA HIGH COURT(CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2007

INTRODUCTION



This is the Written Address in support of the Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff seeking the following reliefs thus:

(1) A Declaration that the refusal, failure and or neglect by the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Defendants to release the information requested by the Plaintiff concerning the allocation of revenue to the Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts and expenditure of same amounts to a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) and therefore is wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional.

(2) A Declaration that the refusal, failure and or neglect by the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Defendants to release the information requested by the Plaintiff concerning the allocation of revenue to the Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts amounts to a violation of the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information, Act, 2011.

(3) A Declaration that by the true interpretation and construction of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) the Defendants as Public Institution within the meaning of Section 7 and 32 of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) are obligated to furnish on request by the Plaintiff a comprehensive, just, fair and detailed accounts of the amount of money allocated to the said Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts.

(4) A Mandatory Order of Injunction directing the Defendants including their servants, agents, privies, officials and or cohorts to furnish the Plaintiff with comprehensive and detailed information concerning the allocation of revenue from the Federation Accounts to the Vandekiya Local Government Area Council of Benue State of Nigeria and expenditure from January, 2010 to September, 2011 until Judgment is delivered in this case within 14 days of the delivery of Judgment.

(5) An Order of this Honourable directing the Defendants to pay a fine of N500, 000 (Five Thousand Naira) each for wrongful denial of the Plaintiff the right of access to Information sought.

(6) The costs of this Action.

(7) Any further order (s) as the Court may deem fit and proper to make in the circumstances of this case.



AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS

The Plaintiff has filed a 10 paragraphed affidavit in support of the Originating Summons. Attached to the Affidavit are documents marked as Exhibit AA and BB respectively. Exhibit AA is the Plaintiff’s Application to the Defendants of request for access to Information dated the 15th July, 2011. Exhibit BB is the acknowledgement of service of the Plaintiff’s application dated the 15th July, 2011 by the Defendants by EMS Speed Post. The Plaintiff shall rely on all the paragraphs of the Affidavit.



STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Plaintiff shall adopt the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons as his Statement of Facts.



ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Plaintiff has posed several Questions for the determination by this Honourable Court. The Plaintiff shall respectfully adopt these Questions as the Issues for determination by this Honourable Court. The Questions shall be reproduced as follows thus:

1. Whether by a true interpretation and construction of Section 5(a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 the Defendants are not obligated to allow the Plaintiff unfettered access to information concerning the allocation of revenue to Vandekiya Local Government Council of Benue State of Nigeria from the Federation Accounts upon the Plaintiff’s application within seven (7) days?

2. Whether the refusal or failure of the Defendants to grant the application of the Plaintiff for access to information concerning the allocation of revenue to the Vandekiya Local Government Council of Benue State of Nigeria within seven (7) days of the receipt of same does not amount to an infringement of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra)?

3. Whether by a true interpretation and construction of the provisions of Section 8 (5) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) the Defendants are not entitled to pay a fine of N500, 000 (Five Thousand Naira) each for wrongful denial of the Plaintiff the right of access to Information sought? .



ISSUES NO. 1 & 2 (ISSUES NOS 1 & 2 SHALL BE ARGUED TOGETHER)



ARGUMENT

1.1 It is submitted that by the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, the Defendants are under an absolute duty to release to the Plaintiff a request for access of information upon an application made to them by the Plaintiff seven days after the receipt of such application by them.

1.2 For the avoidance of any doubt, it is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act (supra) thus:

“Where information is applied for under this Act, the public institution to which the application is made shall subject to Section 6, 7 and 8 of this Act after the application is received :

a. Make the information available to the applicant.

b. Where the public institution considers that the application should be denied, the institution shall give written notice to the applicant that access to all part of the information will not be granted, stating the reasons for the denial, and the section of this Act under which the denial is made”.

1.3 There is compelling affidavit evidence that the Plaintiff by an application dated the 15th July, 2011 sought from the Defendants access to information of the monthly allocation of revenue from the Federation accounts to the Vandeikya Local Government Area of Benue State from the 29th May, 2007 until date. See Exhibit AA.

1.4 There is compelling evidence that this application was received by each of the Defendants on the 19th July, 2011. See Exhibit BB.

1.5 It is clear that the Defendants were in receipt of the application of the Plaintiff by the 19th July, 2011. It therefore goes without saying that the Defendants were under a mandatory duty imposed by Law to release such application sought by the Plaintiff after seven days of the receipt of the Application of the Plaintiff.

1.6 It is submitted that the when the words used in a statute are clear, lucid and unambiguous they must be given their ordinary and natural meaning ascribed to them by the legislature.

1.7 It is clear as the crystal that a true interpretation and construction of the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act the Defendants are under a duty to promptly release information sought by the Plaintiff by the 26th July, 2011 when the seven days given to them by the provisions of Section 5 *a) of the Freedom of Information Act to release such information to an applicant expired.

1.8 It is clear that the Defendants have undoubtedly abdicated the duty placed on them by the provisions of the Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

1.9 In the light of the above, we respectfully urge the Court to resolve these issues against the Defendants and answer Questions Nos. 1 & 2 posed by the Plaintiff in the Originating Summons in the affirmative.



ARGUMENT OF ISSUE NO. 2

2.0 It is submitted that where it is established (like in the case under reference) that the a public institution from which access to information is sought by an applicant under the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act fails to release such information to the applicant seven days after the receipt of such application such defaulting officer or public institution shall be reliable under conviction to payment of a fine of N500, 000. See Section 8 (4) & (5) of the Freedom of Information Act.

2.1 Undoubtedly the Defendants have bluntly and adamantly refused and failed to release the information sought by the Plaintiff which is the monthly allocation of revenue from the Federation Accounts to the Vandeikya Local Government Area of Cross River State of Nigeria.

2.2 It is pertinent that the Defendants are deemed to be public institution on which an application for access to information can be sought from under the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

2.3 It is submitted that a public institution within the purport of the Freedom of Information Act include any legislative, executive, judicial, administrative or advisory body of the Government, including boards, bureau, committees or commissions of the State and any subsidiary body of those bodies including but not limited to committees and sub-committees which are supported in whole or in any part by public fund or which expends public fund and private bodies providing public services, performing public functions or utilizing public funds. See Section 29 of the Freedom of Information Act (supra).

2.4 In the light of the above, we respectfully invite this Honourable Court to resolve this Issue against the Defendants and answer Question No. 2 posed in the Originating Summons in the affirmative.



CONCLUSION

This Honourable Court is respectfully invited to accede to the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff for the following reasons thus:

1. The Plaintiff right of unfettered access to information cognisable by Section 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information has been breached by the Defendants refusal and failure to release upon the application of the Plaintiff the access of information concerning the monthly allocation of revenue from the Federation Accounts from the 29th May, 2011 till date;

2. The Defendants are under a mandatory duty to release to the Plaintiff access of information seven days after the receipt of his application. Undoubtedly, the Defendants have egregiously breached the mandatory duty placed on them by the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act.

3. The Defendants are entitled to payment of a fine of N500, 000.00 for breaching the Plaintiff’s right of access to information.



DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011.



CHIEF OKOI O. OBONO-OBLA

OBONO, OBONO & ASSOCIATES

(PLAINTIFF’S SOLICITORS)

TRINITY HOUSE, MABUSHI

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY, ABUJA, NIGERIA

08033303287; 08033490404

okoiobla@hotmail.com

okoi_advocate@yahoo.com;

okoiadvocate@gmail.com



ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:

1. THE 1ST DEFENDANT

C/O COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

& CHIEFTAINCY MATTERS,

MAKURDI, BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA



2. THE 2ND DEFENDANT

C/O COMMISSIONER FOR FINANCE,

MAKURDI, BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA.



3. THE 3RD DEFENDANT

C/O THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL OF BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA

MAKURDI, BENUE STATE, NIGERIA.



4. THE 4TH DEFENDANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL &

COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE,

MAKURDI, BENUE STATE OF NIGERIA.