A Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed judgment for November 21, 2025 in a Freedom of Information (FOI) suit filed by award-winning journalist and publisher of BONews, Ms. Blessing Oladunjoye, against the Federal Institute of Industrial Research, Oshodi (FIIRO) and its Director-General over the institution’s refusal to disclose information requested by the journalist on its compliance with the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) 2019.
Justice Daniel Emeka Osiagor adjourned the matter for judgment on September 24, 2025, after hearing final arguments from freedom of expression lawyer, Mr. Monday Arunsi, who represented Ms. Oladunjoye.
In the suit filed on March 1, 2022, by Mr. Owolabi Dawodu, a Lagos-based lawyer and member of Media Rights Agenda’s network of lawyers, on behalf of Ms. Oladunjoye, the journalist is asking the court to declare the failure and/or refusal by the FIIRO to grant her access to the information she requested in her letter dated October 26, 2020 is a violation of her right of access to information established and guaranteed by Sections 1(1) and 4 of the FOI Act.
She is praying the court for an order compelling FIIRO to disclose or make available to her the information, which she had requested in her letter, namely:
Copies of all data protection policies of FIIRO, issued in conformity with the NDPR 2019; The name and contact details of the Data Protection Officer of FIIRO, designated in accordance with the NDPR 2019, together with the institution’s relevant data privacy instruments and data protection directives; Details of all capacity building training or other capacity building activities undertaken for the Data Protection Officer of FIIRO and other personnel of the institution involved in any form of data processing since the issuance of the NDPR 2019; The number of persons or individuals whose personal data FIIRO processes on an annual basis, that is over a period of 12 months.
A report from a detailed audit conducted by FIIRO of its privacy and data protection practices in accordance with the NDPR 2019, containing, among others, the personally identifiable information that FIIRO collects on its employees and members of the public; the purpose for which the personally identifiable information is collected; copies of any and all notices given to individuals regarding the collection and use of their personal information; and details of any access or opportunities given to individuals to review, amend, correct, supplement, or delete their personal information collected or held by FIIRO; information on whether or not consent is obtained from an individual before personally identifiable information is collected, used, transferred, or disclosed and details of any method used to obtain consent; copies of the policies of FIIRO and details of its practices for ensuring the security of personally identifiable information; copies of the policies of FIIRO and details of its practices for the proper use of personally identifiable information; copies of FIIRO’s policies and details of its procedures for privacy and data protection; copies of FIIRO’s policies and details of its procedures for monitoring and reporting violations of privacy and data protection policies; and copies of FIIRO’s policies and details of its procedures for assessing the impact of technologies on its stated privacy and security policies.
Ms Oladunjoye is also seeking an order directing FIIRO and its director-general to pay her the sum of N1 Million as exemplary and aggravated damages for the flagrant and unlawful violation of her right of access to information and the wrongful denial of the information to her.
At the proceedings of September 24, 2025, Ms. Oladunjoye was represented by Mr. Arunsi, FIIRO and its Director-General were not represented by any lawyer and were absent from court.
Mr. Arunsi informed the Court that the matter was fixed for hearing of the substantive suit and that both FIIRO and its DG had been duly served.
He recalled that on the previous date scheduled for hearing, both FIIRO and its Director General were also absent and not represented by any lawyer, but that the court declined to proceed because the court’s records did not contain any proof of service of the Motion on Notice dated March 1, 2022.
Mr. Arunsi explained that he thereafter undertook to effect personal service of the processes and deposed to an affidavit of service, which he filed in the court and which was now part of the court’s records, adding that “Hearing Notices” were subsequently served on both FIIRO and its Director General.
Asked by the judge if FIIRO and its Director General were duly notified of the day’s proceedings, Mr. Arunsi said “yes” and drew the judge’s attention to the affidavit of service filed on June 20, 2025, a copy of which he also presented to the court.
He stressed that the application was ripe for hearing and that, subject to the judge’s convenience, he was ready to proceed.
The judged asked Mr. Arunsi what the issue in contention was and the basis of the suit, to which he replied that Ms. Oladunjoye is a journalist who, on October 26, 2020, submitted a Freedom of Information request to FIIRO seeking details of the institution’s compliance with the NDPR but that FIIRO failed to respond to or disclose the requested information, which prompted the journalist to institute the action to enforce her statutory right of access to information under the FOI Act.
Asked by the judge why Ms. Oladunjoye did not send a follow-up letter or reminder before approaching the Court, Mr. Arunsi explained that the FOI Act makes no provision for reminders or follow-up letters but expressly mandates public institutions to respond to requests for information within seven days of receipt, with a possible extension of another seven days where processing difficulties arise and that such an extension ought to be communicated to the applicant.
He submitted that upon the expiration of the period stipulated in the Act without disclosure or explanation, the request is deemed denied, and an applicant for information is entitled to approach the Court within 30 days of refusal or deemed refusal for a judicial review.
Mr. Arunsi argued that the clear intention of the FOI Act is to discourage delays in responding to requests, while balancing the operational realities that may be faced by public institutions.
The judge commended Ms. Oladunjoye for her passion and commitment to holding public institutions accountable, and asked Mr. Arunsi to proceed with the application.
Mr. Arunsi accordingly adopted the Motion on Notice filed and dated March 1, 2022, and urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought, following which the judge fixed judgment for November 21, 2025.
