The Abuja Court of Appeal has rendered verdicts on separate appeals aiming for the release of asset declaration documents belonging to former presidents, vice presidents, and key officials of the National Assembly. These appeals, filed by the Public and Private Development Centre and the African Centre for Media and Information Literacy, sought to compel the Code of Conduct Bureau to divulge these documents. However, the court rejected the appeals, deeming them premature and lacking in merit.
In delivering the principal judgment, Justice Okon Abang stressed that, at the time of filing, the National Assembly had not established written protocols for public access to asset declaration documents. He observed that the appellants should have initially petitioned the court to enforce the establishment of such protocols by the National Assembly before seeking access to the documents from the Code of Conduct Bureau. This procedural prerequisite, as per Justice Abang, was essential to ensure adherence to constitutional provisions and legal frameworks.
Moreover, Justice Abang pointed out disparities between the appellants’ reliance on the Freedom of Information Act and the constitutional provisions governing access to asset declaration documents. He underscored the necessity for alignment between the legal frameworks overseeing public access to government information and the constitutional safeguards protecting individual privacy rights. Considering these factors, the court upheld the dismissal of the appeals and levied costs against the appellants.
The dismissal of the appeals underscores the significance of procedural adherence and legal clarity in matters concerning access to sensitive government records. It accentuates the necessity for robust legal frameworks that strike a balance between transparency and accountability while safeguarding individual privacy rights. By reiterating the importance of due process and legal standards, the court’s decision contributes to the integrity and credibility of public governance processes.
The appellants, dissatisfied with the lower court’s ruling, sought redress at the Court of Appeal in their pursuit of access to the asset declaration documents. Nonetheless, the appellate court’s decision reaffirms the precedence of procedural requisites and legal tenets in adjudicating disputes involving access to sensitive government information. While the appellants may have pursued transparency and accountability through their legal endeavors, the court’s ruling underscores the significance of upholding constitutional protections and procedural fairness in such contexts.
Looking ahead, stakeholders and advocacy groups advocating for transparency and accountability in governance must navigate legal frameworks diligently and strategically. They must collaborate with pertinent institutions to address any deficiencies in accessing government information while upholding constitutional provisions and legal principles. In doing so, they can contribute to fortifying democratic institutions and advancing good governance practices that serve the public interest.
