With 40 applications for information submitted to it under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act in 2025, the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) received the highest number of information requests during the year, according to the latest implementation report on the Law presented to the National Assembly by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi (SAN).
The report, submitted on March 24, 2026, provides a detailed breakdown of how various public institutions handled information requests during the previous year and includes an aggregation of data from numerous public bodies, revealing varying levels of engagement with information requests.
It shows that dozens of public institutions reported that they received no FOI applications for information during the reporting period. Thus, out of the 108 public institutions that made institutional reports to the AGF for the year, 48 of them, constituting about 44 percent of the total number that complied with their reporting obligations, indicated that they received no request for information from members of the public during the year under review.
The AGF’s report is a mandatory requirement under Section 29 of the FOI Act, which requires all public institutions to submit annual reports on their implementation of the law to the AGF, who is mandated to compile and transmit a consolidated report to the National Assembly.
Section 29 requires all public institutions to provide details such as the number of FOI applications received, the number processed, the average response time, cases where requests for information were denied, appeals filed by applicants against the decisions of the public institution, and instances where courts upheld the institutions’ decisions to withhold information.
The report is the only official centralized national indicator of FOI implementation in Nigeria. Despite the incomplete state of the report, as a result of the failure of the vast majority of public institutions to submit their implementation reports, it further exposes serious deficiencies in compliance by public institutions and raises concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms under the FOI Act.
Although the report appears largely aggregative rather than evaluative, it shows extremely low levels of FOI activity in 2025 as a result of the prevalence of “Nil” entries by public institutions on the number of applications that they received and processed; as well as the very low numbers of applications received and processed among those institutions that reported receiving requests for information.
The report indicates widespread non-compliance by public institutions with their reporting obligations, as over 90 percent of Federal public institutions did not submit any report, while many of those that put in their reports did not fully comply with the reporting requirements.
The AGF attached as an Appendix to his report a list of 180 public institutions that did not submit their implementation report for 2025. They include Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Office of the Accountant General of the Federation, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC), Ministry of Budget and Planning, Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Works, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Water Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Industry Trade and Investment, Ministry of Solid Minerals, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Women Affairs, Ministry of Youth Development, Ministry of Sports Development, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Communications, Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and Ministry of Niger Delta.
Others include the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, the Fiscal Responsibility Commission, the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Nigeria Customs Service, Budget Office of the Federation, the Debt Management Office, the National Planning Commission, the Federal Character Commission, the Code of Conduct Bureau, the Public Complaints Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practice Commission (ICPC), the Economy Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), the Nigeria Immigration Service, the Nigeria Police Force, the Federal Road Safety Corps, the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria, the National Film and Video Censors Board, and the National Council for Arts and Culture.
Other defaulting public institutions are the Museums and Monuments Commission, Digital Bridge Institute, the Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the Department of State Service, the Nigeria Intelligence Agency, the Defence Space Administration, the National War College, the Defence Headquarters, the Nigeria Export Promotion Council, National Open University of Nigeria, the Nigeria Police Academy, the Nigerian Defence Academy, National Insurance Commission (NAICOM), Nigerian Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE), Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), National Commission for Nomadic Education (NCNE), National Commission for Adult Education Mass Literacy and Non-Formal Education (NMEC), and National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA, among many others.
Indeed, although the list sent by the AGF to the National Assembly of public institutions that failed to submit their implementation reports contained the names of only 180 institutions, in reality, more than 1,000 public institutions defaulted since his report provided details for only 108 public institutions that turned in their reports. The website of the Federal Civil Service Commission contains a list of 1,309 Federal public institutions.
Of the public institutions that submitted their reports, those that reported the most significant FOI activities are the NBC, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), the Federal Ministry of Finance, the National Assembly Service Commission, the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), and the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).
The NBC reported receiving 40 applications for information, out of which it claimed to have processed 34, taking an average of seven to 14 days; CBN reported receiving 29 applications, out of which it processed 21, taking an average of 14 days; while NTA reported receiving 17 applications, all of which it claimed to have processed, taking an average of 6 days.
The Federal Ministry of Finance reported receiving 15 applications, all of which it claimed to have processed, taking three days on the average; the National Assembly Service Commission reported receiving 14 applications, all of which it claimed to have processed, taking an average of five days; NITDA reported receiving 13 applications, all of which it said it processed, taking five days on the average; while NUPRC reported receiving 10 applications, none of which it process. Curiously, however, it claimed that it took an average of eight days to process applications.
The low number of FOI requests made to public institutions and the generally poor level of FOI activities across public institutions suggest limited public awareness and usage of the Act; lack of confidence in public institutions; administrative barriers discouraging applicants from making requests for information; or poor record-keeping and reporting by agencies.
Exemptions relied on by some public institutions to justify withholding information from requesters are those contained in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act, although some applications for information were reportedly not granted because they were made to the wrong public institutions or were transferred to other public institutions having greater interests, pursuant to Section 5 of the Act.
Section 14 of the FOI Act exempts from disclosure personal information, including files and personal information maintained with respect to clients, patients, residents, students, or other individuals receiving social, medical, educational, vocational, financial, supervisory or custodial care or services directly or indirectly from public institutions; personnel files and personal information maintained with public institutions or applicants for such positions.
It also exempts files and personal information maintained with respect to any applicant, registrant or licensee by any government or public institution cooperating with or engaged in professional or occupational registration, licensure or discipline; information required of any tax payer in connection with the assessment or collection of any tax unless disclosure is otherwise requested by statute; and information revealing the identity of persons who file complaints with or provide information to administrative, investigative, law enforcement or penal agencies on the commission of any crime.
Section 15 exempts from disclosure third-party information, including information that contains trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person or business where such trade secrets or information are proprietary, privileged or confidential, or where disclosure of such trade secrets or information may cause harm to the interests of the third party.
Section 16 exempts information that is subject to certain privileges such as legal practitioner-client privilege; health workers-client privilege; journalism confidentiality privileges; and other professional privileges conferred by Law.
For instance, the CBN cited Sections 5, 15 and 16 to justify its refusal to grant access to information; NUPRC similarly invoked Sections 14 and 15 in denying access to information; the Rural Electrification Agency relied on Section 15 in withholding information, while the National Assembly Commission also relied on Sections 15 and 16 as the basis upon which it refused to disclose requested information.
Although it is legitimate for public institutions to apply any of the exemptions provided in the Act in appropriate cases, the report and the manner in which the exemptions have been invoked by public institutions in dealing with information requesters raise concerns regarding the potential overuse of exemptions, overly broad or vague interpretations, the lack of detailed justification to demonstrate how the exemption applies, and limited or no independent scrutiny of the decisions refusing to disclose information which rely on the exemptions.
The extant Guidelines on the Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2011 (Revised Edition 2013), issued by the AGF, provides as follows: “The reasons for refusing to provide an applicant with access to information or record(s) under the FOIA must be explained in a Refusal Notice, which should generally be issued within the 7-day period provided by the Act. It is not sufficient for your reply to simply include a broad statement such as: “injurious to the conduct of International Affairs and Defence”. As a minimum, you must identify a specific exemption as the basis for withholding information and explain why it applies.”
This same approach ought to be followed by public institutions in fulfilling their reporting obligations in order to clearly demonstrate that the exemptions are being properly interpreted and applied.
