Judgement Without Justice, By Sesugh Akume

Judgement Without Justice, By Sesugh Akume

The Federal High Court ruled that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to an application within the legally mandated seven days, despite citing pandemic-related operational constraints. The judge confirmed that the agency failed to notify the applicant of any delays, affirming that statutory deadlines must be strictly observed to ensure transparency and accountability in public institutions. However, the court declined to impose the statutory fine or award damages for the delay, interpreting the term "conviction" in the Act as exclusive to criminal matters rather than civil administrative offenses. This distinction creates a significant gap in enforcement, as it allows public bodies to be declared in error without facing the prescribed financial penalties. The author challenges this interpretation, arguing that civil convictions for regulatory offenses should trigger fines to serve as a meaningful deterrent against non-compliance. This case is highly relevant to open data advocates because it tests the enforceability of access to information laws against powerful state institutions. It highlights the critical need for judicial clarity on whether administrative delays carry substantial consequences. Without the threat of penalties, the practical utility of open data frameworks remains undermined, emphasizing the necessity for robust legal mechanisms that ensure rights are accompanied by effective remedies and tangible accountability.

Related news

• Electoral Bonds | Supreme Court Rejects Union's Argument That Citizens Have No Right To Know About Political Funding
• SC junks legal framework enabling electoral bonds
• SC flags lack of distinction between 'campaign and electoral funding'
• SC rules electoral bonds scheme 'unconstitutional'; Here are the key takeaways from the verdict
• The reasoning and fallout of the electoral bonds verdict