A Federal High Court last Friday ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to furnish Mr Boniface Okezie, with details of property recovered from Mrs Cecilia Ibru within 72 hours.
Ibru who was former Managing Director of Oceanic Bank Plc, was convicted of mismanagement of depositors’ funds and reckless grant of credit facilities in October 2010.
Some money and property were also recovered from her.
Justice Mohammed Idris, delivering judgment in a suit filed by Okezie, president of the Progressive Shareholders Association of Nigeria, (PSAN) in Lagos, directed the EFCC to provide the plaintiff with details of the recovered property.
Apart from the EFCC, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), was joined as defendant in the suit.
Our correspondent reports that Okezie had instituted the suit against the defendants in December 2012, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.
The plaintiff, through his counsel, Mr Chuks Nwachukwu, had sought among other reliefs, an order of court, compelling the EFCC to disclose the total cash and value of properties recovered from Ibru.
Okezie also sought to ascertain the location of the recovered assets and what portion had been returned to Oceanic Bank and its shareholders.
The plaintiff also required information on the source of funds and amount paid to the EFCC for the prosecution of former bank chiefs in Nigeria.
He requested for the list of criminal prosecution carried out by the EFCC through private lawyers and the reason for not utilising lawyers in the commission.
The plaintiff sought an order compelling the AGF to disclose the list of criminal prosecution carried out by the Ministry of Justice through private lawyers.
He also sought to know why the Ministry of Justice had resorted to the use of private lawyers for prosecution, instead of lawyers in the ministry.
Okezie sought to ascertain the cost of such prosecution by the private lawyers.
Justice Idris, in his judgment, held that the FOI Act required all public institutions to proactively disclose information about their structure and process.
He said that where such information was required, the institution had a duty to provide same within seven days.
The judge said that where a valid reason exists for non disclosure, it should be stated in writing to the applicant within seven days.
Idris held that by the provisions of Section 2 and Section 3 of the FOI Act, the plaintiff was conferred with the requisite ‘locus standi’ to institute the suit.
According to the judge, the plaintiff did not need to demonstrate any specific interest in the information before it is provided for him.
“By the provision of the FOI Act, where an information is sought, public institutions are required to deliver same within seven days.
“Where, however, it declines, it must elicit valid grounds for its refusal in writing to the applicant within seven days,” he said.
According to the judge, it appears that the AGF has not declined to provide the required information, but sought for adequate time within which to collate and serve it on the applicant.
He said that the EFCC, however, had bluntly refused to comply.
“I am of the view that on receipt of the plaintiff’s request, the EFCC had a duty to respond, but in this case they simply kept mute.
“Let me say that none of the defendants has such powers under the law.
“The EFCC had failed to file any counter affidavit stating the reasons for its failure to avail the plaintiff with the required information.
“In my view, the defendant did not show that by its non disclosure, it was protecting the certainty, deliberative or policy making process within the agency.
“The EFCC has not shown that it is protecting the disclosure of information that will constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individuals in the agency, or that would contaminate its court proceedings,” he said.
The judge said he was of the view that none of the information required by the plaintiff threatens the national security.
“Obedience to the rule of law, especially by those who take oath of office in public institutions, is a ‘desideratum’ to good governance.
“Judgment is hereby given in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants are directed to provide the said information within 72 hours of this judgment.
“The law is the last resort of human wisdom and the court will never sanction what is injurious to the public,” Idris said.