A Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011 overrides other Acts, Laws and Regulations in matters concerning the release of requested information as it held that the Nigeria Shippers Council violated the Act when it failed to comply with the information request made to it by award-winning journalist and publisher of an online newspaper, Ms Blessing Oladunjoye, in October 2020.
Delivering judgment on February 24, 2026, in the suit filed by Ms Oladunjoye, against the Council with the support of Media Rights Agenda (MRA), the presiding judge, Justice Chukwujekwu Joseph Aneke, ordered the institution to grant the journalist access to all the information she applied for in her letter dated October 26, 2020 relating to the institution’s compliance with the Nigerian Data Protection Regulations (NDPR), 2019.
The suit was initiated by a motion exparte on December 3, 2020, which named the Council and its Executive Secretary as respondents, and asked for leave of the court to apply for judicial review of the failure and/or refusal of the Council to grant her access to the information she requested in her letter dated October 26, 2020.
The journalist prayed the court to declare the institution’s action a violation of her right of access to information established and guaranteed by Sections 1(1) and 4 of the FOI Act and compel it to disclose or make available to her the information, which she had requested in her letter, namely:
• Copies of all data protection policies of the Council issued in conformity with the NDPR 2019;
• The name and contact details of the Data Protection Officer of the Council, 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 the Council 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 the Council processes on an annual basis, that is over a period of 12 months.
• A report from a detailed audit conducted by the Council of its privacy and data protection practices in accordance with the NDPR 2019, containing, among others, the personally identifiable information that the institution 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 the institution;
• 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 the Council and details of its practices for ensuring the security of personally identifiable information;
• Copies of the policies of the Council and details of its practices for the proper use of personally identifiable information;
• Copies of the Council’s policies and details of its procedures for privacy and data protection;
• Copies of the Council’s policies and details of its procedures for monitoring and reporting violations of privacy and data protection policies; and
• Copies of the Council’s policies and details of its procedures for assessing the impact of technologies on its stated privacy and security policies.
Ms Oladunjoye also sought an order directing the Council and its Executive Secretary 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.
The Court granted her leave on November 16, 2021, following which the order granting her leave and a motion on notice for judicial review were served on the Council on January 19, 2022.
However, on June 1, 2022, the Council and its Executive Secretary filed a notice of preliminary objection asking the court to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the originating processes in the suit were served on them over two years after they were filed.
But Ms Oladunjoye’s lawyer, Mr. Monday Arunsi, urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection, contending that it was misleading, misconceived and prejudicial to the journalist.
Ruling on the preliminary objection, Justice Aneke said there was no doubt that what was filed on December 3, 2020 was a motion ex parte for leave to file an application for judicial review and that leave was granted on November 16, 2021 while a motion on notice dated January 10, 2022 was filed the same day and served on the Council and its Executive Secretary on January 19, 2022 – nine days after it was filed.
He therefore dismissed the preliminary objection, saying that Ms Oladunjoye’s application for judicial review was not spent or expired at the time it was served on the Council and its Executive Secretary.
Ruling on the substantive suit, the judge said there was also no doubt that the Council and its Executive Secretary did not make the information requested by Ms Oladunjoye available to her.
He held that the defenses put forward by the Council and its Executive Secretary that there was no IT Policy adopted by the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA); that they have no Data Protection Officer; and that they were constrained by reasons beyond their control to satisfy or meet Ms Oladunjoye’s request at the time do not benefit them in view of the provisions of several sections of the FOI Act.
Citing Section 1(1) of the FOI Act, Justice Aneke held that the Act overrides other Acts, laws and regulations on the release of the information requested and that the defence of the Council and its Executive Secretary that some of the information requested are confidential “is a matter which the Respondents should have written to the Applicant explaining the reasons why any such information could not be released by them” and if Ms Oladunjoye disagreed, she could then “approach the courts to determine whether it is not in the public interest to release such information.”
Noting that even a copy of the Council’s ICT Policies, which they exhibited in the suit, was not forwarded to Ms Oladunjoye, nor was she informed of it, he said “The court proceedings initiated by the Applicant to enforce compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is not supposed to be the venue and time to respond to the Applicant’s request.”
The judge therefore held that the Council and its Executive Secretary breached the FOI Act and failed to comply with it regarding the journalist’s request.
However, on Ms Oladunjoye’s claim for N1 million as damages for violation of her rights under the Act, he cited Sections 6(5), 1(3) and 2(6) of the Act and said: it is “clear that the court can only grant an order compelling the Respondents to comply with the FOI Act in a civil proceeding like this. The grant of monetary claims can only be validly made by this court in a criminal case, where there is a charge, plea, trial and conviction. This is not a criminal trial.”
Justice Aneke therefore granted Ms Oladunjoye’s prayers for:
• A declaration that the failure and/or refusal by the Council to grant her access to information 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;
• A declaration that the failure and/or refusal by the Council to grant her access to the information she requested constitutes wrongful denial of access to information guaranteed under Section (5) of the Act;
• A declaration that the failure and/or refusal by the Council to give her a written notice that access to all or part of the information she requested will not be granted, and stating reasons for the denial, and the sections of the FOI Act under which the denial is made amounts to a violation of Section 4(b) of the Act; and
• An order compelling the Council to disclose or make available to her all the information she requested in her letter, and where such information cannot be made available, to write to her giving reasons why the information cannot be made available.
