Can the Code of Conduct Bureau Be Forced to Disclose Asset Declarations Under the FOI Act?

CASE TITLE: PPDC LTD/GTE v. CCB & ANOR (2024) LPELR-61840(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 15TH MARCH, 2024

JUSTICES: HAMMA AKAWU BARKA
ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED
OKON EFRETI ABANG

DIVISION: ABUJA

PRACTICE AREA: LEGISLATION

FACTS:

This appeal borders on an application for copies of the written declaration of assets submitted by public officers to the Code of Conduct Bureau.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court Bench Coram Hon. Justice A. Abdul Kafarati J delivered on 7th November 2017.

The trial Court dismissed the case of the Appellant on the ground that until the National Assembly prescribes the terms and conditions stated in Paragraph 3(c) of the 3rd Schedule of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the Respondents cannot be compelled to disclose the information relating to the declaration of assets made by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, Vice President Namadi Sambo, President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice President Prof. Yemi Osinbanjo as requested through the Appellant’s letter dated 6th February, 2019 made pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2011.

​The suit was commenced by way of motion ex parte for leave to bring an application for Judicial Review by way of Order of mandamus for the enforcement of the Appellant’s right to obtain information from the Respondents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Upon the grant of the ex parte application, the Appellant filed and served its motion on notice for the writ of mandamus. The Respondents responded by filing a counter affidavit and written address in opposition to the substantive application seeking an order of Court to compel the Respondents to disclose the information relating to the declaration of assets made by the Public Officers mentioned above. The Appellant later filed its reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents. Parties were heard. However, on November 7, 2017, the trial Court delivered its judgment dismissing the Appellant’s suit.

Being aggrieved with the judgment, the Appellant appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on:

“Whether the Respondents are bound to give out information requested by the appellant when the condition precedent provided by the constitution has not been satisfied.”

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:

Learned Counsel for the Appellant stated that the provisions of Paragraph 3(c) Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution and Section 3(c) of the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act Cap C15 LFN 2004 empower the Respondents to receive and keep custody of declarations of assets submitted to it by public officers. Learned Counsel then submitted that by the provisions of Sections 1(1), 2(2), and 9(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, the Appellant is guaranteed the right to request for and obtain information in the possession or custody of the 1st Respondent as a Public Institution.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the provisions of Paragraph 3(c) Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution and Section 3(c) of the Code of Conduct Bureau Act and submitted with great force that the Freedom of Information Act has made elaborate provisions on access to all information held by public institutions and these elaborate provisions covered in its view the purpose intended by the provisions of Paragraph 3(c) Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution and Section 3(c) of the Code of Conduct Bureau Act. Because of the elaborate and extensive provisions made in the Freedom of Information Act, there is no need for any special law specifically prescribing the terms and conditions for making the asset declaration of Public Officer submitted to the Respondents accessible to an applicant requesting such information.

​Learned Counsel submitted that there are no provisions in the constitution to the effect that except a law is specially made to prescribe the terms and conditions for the inspection/disclosure of assets declaration alone pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 3(c) Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the Constitution, any law made by the National Assembly concerning disclosure of information held by a public institution will be inapplicable to declarations of assets submitted by Public Officer holders to the Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Respondents are public institutions and are subject to the application of the Freedom of Information Act and every information held by them, including information relating to the declaration of assets submitted to them by Public Office holders, constitutes public records/information held by a public institution under the provisions of Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Respondents are not bound to give out information requested by the Appellant when the condition precedent provided by the constitution has not been satisfied.

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIO:

GOVERNMENT AGENCY – CODE OF CONDUCT BUREAU: Whether the Code of Conduct Bureau can be compelled to disclose assets declaration information under the FOI Act when the terms and conditions stated in Paragraph 3(c) Part 1 of the 3rd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution has not been prescribed by the National Assembly

“For emphasis, Paragraph 3(a) and (c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), empowers the Code of Conduct Bureau to receive declaration of assets by public officers and to retain custody of such declarations and make them available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe. Paragraph 3(c) specifically provides that the inspection of such declarations shall be on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe. Thus, the right to inspect declarations must be in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the National Assembly. In other words, the Paragraph imposes a duty on the National Assembly to specifically prescribe terms and conditions for the inspection of asset declarations of public officers by any citizen of Nigeria. Paragraph 3(c) also imposes a duty on the Code of Conduct Bureau to only allow inspection of declarations in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the National Assembly. This is because where a statute prescribes a particular method of performing a duty, that method and no other must be adopted in the performance of that duty: CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK (NIG) PLC v AG ANAMBRA STATE & ANOR (1992) LPELR-875(SC) at 47, paras. E – E. Therefore, until the National Assembly specifically prescribes the terms and conditions on the fulfillment of which asset declarations may be inspected as constitutionally provided in Paragraph 3(c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution, the general provisions in the Freedom of Information Act cannot be employed for such inspection as was contended by the Appellant before the trial Court and in this appeal. The Freedom of Information Act, though a general law made by the National Assembly for obtaining public information, cannot supplant the mandatory requirement under Paragraph 3(c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution for the National Assembly to prescribe specific terms and conditions for inspection of asset declarations.” Per MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol