Nigeria: Court Dismisses MRA’s Suit Over Public Officers Assets Declarations

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that although every Nigerian has a constitutional right to inspect the assets declaration made by public officers, the right is not enforceable until National Assembly prescribes the conditions for it exercise.

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Osaro Odemwingie
Tel. & Fax: 01-4930831

E-mail: [email protected]

Lagos, Wednesday, May 2, 2001: A Federal High Court in Lagos has ruled that although every Nigerian has a constitutional right to inspect the assets declaration made by public officers, the right is not enforceable until National Assembly prescribes the conditions for it exercise.

Saying that the prescription of terms and conditions by the National Assembly is a pre-condition to the exercise of the unimpeded right of access to inspect the declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by public officers, the court held that members of the public have no right to ensure that public officers comply with the Code of Conduct for Public Officers because that right is reserved for the Bureau by the provisions of Paragraph 3(d) in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

Justice Gbolahan Jinadu gave the interpretation in striking out a suit instituted by Media Rights Agenda (MRA) seeking to compel the Code of Conduct Bureau to release to it copies of the declaration of assets made by 40 public officers, including President Olusegun Obasanjo.

In the suit, MRA contended that the true interpretation and effect of Section 3[c] of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution is that every Nigerian citizen has an uninhibited right of access to assets declarations made by public officers and that the refusal of the Code of Conduct Bureau to allow it access to the assets declarations made by 40 named public officers was unconstitutional.

Besides President Obasanjo, other public officers included in MRA’s request were the Vice President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar; then Senate President, Chief Evan Enwerem; the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, Alhaji Salisu Buhari; and the Governors of the 36 states of the Federation.

The Plaintiffs in the suit were the Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights Agenda and Mr. Edetaen Ojo, MRA’s Executive Director, while the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Attorney-General of the Federation were named as defendants.

By an Originating Summons filed in August 1999 by its Director of Legal Services, Mr. Tunde Fagbohunlu, MRA asked the court to make a judicial determination of the questions: whether every Nigerian citizen has a right to ensure that public officers comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers set out in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution; if the answer is yes, whether the right of every Nigerian citizen to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct for Public Officers also confers on every citizen, by necessary implication, a right of access to assets declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by public officers; if the answer is yes, whether the true interpretation and effect of Section 3[c] of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution is that every Nigerian has an uninhibited right of access to assets declarations made by public officers, which can only be circumscribed if the National Assembly imposes lawful conditions for that purpose; and if the answer to this question is also yes, whether the Bureau’s refusal to give MRA access to the assets declarations made by the affected public officers is not unconstitutional.

In the course of arguments on the substantive suit, the Federal Government and the Code of Conduct Bureau brought through their lawyer, Mr. J.J. Ndupu, a preliminary objection in which they asked the court to dismiss the suit without answering the questions of facts, on the grounds that MRA has no right of action, it has no locus standi to institute the action, the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, and the conditions precedent for the suit to be competent have not been satisfied by MRA.

Ruling on the objection, Justice Jinadu said his understanding and interpretation of the provisions of Paragraph 3(a)(c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution is that every Nigerian citizen has an unimpeded access to inspect the assets declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau subject to the terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe and not as argued by MRA’s lawyer that every Nigerian citizen prima facie has unimpeded right of access to the asset declarations, which right can be circumscribed only if and when the National Assembly imposes lawful conditions for that purpose.

According to the judge, “I am also of the view that the terms and conditions to be prescribed by the National Assembly is a condition precedent to the exercise of the unimpeded right of access to inspect the declaration forms submitted to the Code of Conduct Bureau by public officers.”

He ruled that since the National Assembly had not prescribed the terms and conditions for the exercise of the right of access to inspection, the suit was incompetent.

Justice Jinadu said he agreed with the government’s lawyer that MRA has no right to ensure that Nigerian public officers comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers because that right is reserved for the Code of Conduct Bureau by the provisions of paragraph 3(d) in Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

But he stressed that “the right of access to inspection of the declaration forms in the possession of the Code of Conduct Bureau is for its exercise subject to the terms and conditions prescribed by the National Assembly which have not been prescribed.”

The judge said the resultant effect of the court’s finding that MRA has an inchoate right exercisable only after the National Assembly has prescribed the terms and conditions upon which MRA can exercise the right of access to inspect the declaration forms in the Bureau’s possession therefore means that MRA has no right of action, lacks locus standi or capacity to institute the suit and consequently, that the court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.

He accordingly upheld the government’s objection and struck out the suit.