This document is an application for a research grant to study Nigeria's Freedom of Information Act of 2011. The study aims to [1] examine how the Act aligns with other open government laws and the Nigerian Constitution, [2] identify the procedural guidelines for enforcing the right to information, and [3] determine if the Official Secrets Act was impliedly repealed by the Freedom of Information Act. The researcher plans to use legal sources like the Constitution and Acts, as well as secondary sources like books, journals, and cases, to conduct a doctrinal and empirical analysis of these issues. The expected findings include that information access is a fundamental right and that security reasons cannot broadly prevent information disclosure under the Act.

1. APPLICATION FOR RESEACH GRANT
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Freedom of information is access to information held by public authorities. Until recently, the
right to freedom of information in Nigeria has been overlooked. The question as to whether
the right to free expression is the same as the right to information is germane in the face of its
practical applicability as a non justiceable right.
In a country where Freedom of Information Act1
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is
nascent in operation, anyone can make a request for information. A request for information
must be responded to within 7 days. The letter requesting for the information serves as the pre
action notice whenever it is required. Agreed that pre-action notice has long been accepted as
part of our civil procedure wherever statutes prescribe that such should be given2
is not
applicable to the enforcement of right to information because the request for the information
itself serves the purpose of the notice. In the enforcement of fundamental rights, old crusted
procedure by which a potential litigant has to prepare and head a letter pre-action notice
before instituting an action is ancient and misplaced and failure to satisfy such conditions
cannot render a fundamental right action incompetent.
The principle of juristic personality espoused in the famous High Court judgment of
AGBOMAGBE v GB OLIVANT3
cannot be settled for in an action under FOIA. This amongst
1
(2011) vol. 98, No.6
2
NNPC v Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (pt. 559) 598 @ 617 para. A
3
(1961) 1 ALL NLR 116

2. others, can be deduced from literal interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).
The Act prohibits the disclosure of personal and ‘national interest’ information except it can
be argued that such refusal will endanger a public interest. Public interest is an umbrella for
the release of information. Ordinarily, in freedom of information regime, information ought to
be given to the applicant on request and not necessarily through the throat of the court. The
Act states the circumstance and the procedure for information to be disclosed to the court.
JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY
Many scholars have researched on the Act. Most of them are foreign authours,4
who deal on
ideals and not the practice and application of the Act. The earliest published academic article
on this subject in Nigeria is by Adekunle, Adedeji, Aigbokhan President, amongst others.5
There are arguments that National Assembly share equal legislative competence on
information, public records and archives with the State House of Assemblies by virtue of
4
Birkinshaw, P; (2010) Freedom of Information: the Law, the Practice and the Ideal’, Cambridge University Press:
London; Goldberg, W.M; (1999) ‘The Freedom of Information Act: Developing a Record for Appellate Review’ GW
LR, VOL. 67, No. 4; Keller, P; (1992) ‘Freedom of the Press in Hong Kong: Liberal Values and Sovereign Interests’
TILJ, vol. 27, No. 2; Marks, A. N; (1999) “Freedom of Information Act: developing a record for appellate review”
GWL. Rev, vol. 67: 1033; Rosenfield F; (1976) “The Freedom of Information Act’s, Privacy Exemptions and the
Privacy Act of 1974” HCL.Rev.vol.11, 596; Moreham, N.A; (2005) “Privacy in Common Law” 121 LQR. 628;
Moreham N. A; (2006) “Privacy in Public Places” CLJ. Vol.65, p.473-635; Leith, P; (2011)2 “Current Issues in
Research Access to Public Register Databases” EJLT No.2; Murad M; “Improving Transparency Through Right to
Information and E- Governance: A Bangladesh Perspective” (2010) Volume 6 Issue 1. Open Government Journal;
Warren S. D and Brandeis, L.D; “The Right to Privacy” Harvard Law Review (1890), vol.4; Zac, F and Johnson, H et
al (2010). ‘Sustaining Transparency: Journalists, Government Officials and the Minnesota Data Protection Act’,
vol.6 Issue 1
5
Adekunle, D; ‘The Public Service of Nigeria and the Freedom of Information Act 2011
JCLI: Federal Ministry of Justice vol. 5, 2013; Aigbokhan, P, “Freedom of Information Act of 2011: Incentive for
Secrecy” NNHRCJ vol.3, 2013, PP. 96-118

3. paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the 1999 Constitution. This school of thought believes
that freedom of information is on the concurrent list, so both the state and the federal
government can enact on right to information, particularly where the right flows naturally
from the stream of the constitution. On the converse, the state feels that legislation on records
of state is exclusively theirs. This has been the greatest challenge to the enforcing of the right
to information in Nigeria.
Considering the inability of section 39 of Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to
assist applicants to access public record in the face of a statute called the Official Secrets Act,
the work will reveal whether the doctrine of implied repeal affects Official Secrets Act.
Noteworthy also is the fact that Official Secret Act6
(hereinafter referred to as ‘OSA’) has not
been expressly abrogated by the Act. The work will unearth the status of OSA and recommend
an approach that will guide the court in interpreting legislative framework that opens while
another closes. Again, seeing that the Act provides for damages to the tune of N500, 000.00
were the denial of information is unjustified. The question as to whether the applicant is
entitled to general damages in addition to the statutory damage will be examined.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
Historically and considering Freedom of the Information from the theoretical framework of
view, the Act is presumed to be a press law, but beyond that, by the enacting clause, it is an Act
that functions to instill good governance. The study will dig deep into the history of Freedom
of Information and examine the consistency of the Act with other open government
legislations in Nigeria including but not limited to Public procurement Act, Nigeria Extractive
6
Oath Act of 1963 LFN 2004, Vol. 12

4. Industry and Transparency Initiative Act and the groundnorm-1999 Constitution. This study
will reveal the provisions of the Act that promotes secrecy,7
and streamline same for social
justice.
Courts around the world have similarly determined that the right to receive information,
including information held by the government, is a central and integral element of freedom of
expression. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, has repeatedly held that
Article 10 of the European Convention guarantees not only the right of speakers to impart
information and ideas, but also the right of the public to be properly informed.8
The study shall contain close consideration of the following;
(a) To identify if freedom of Information qualifies as a fundamental right
(b) To identify the procedural guidelines and the pre- conditions for enforcing the right to
information
(c) To identify the conditions and scope of using security reason as a defense
(d) To x-ray whether Official Secret Act have been impliedly repealed by Freedom of
Information Act
(e) To identify juristic personality under the Act
(f) To identify whether FOIA covers the field in respect of records of state
RESEARCH METHOD
7
Aigbokhan, P, “Freedom of Information Act of 2011: Incentive for Secrecy” NNHRCJ vol.3, 2013, PP. 96-118
8
Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (Series A. No. 30) European Court of Human Rights (1979/1980); (1979) 2
EHRR 245 Judgment of April 26, 1979.

5. The Act was made to fill a gap in the law and at the same time operate in the context of
existing laws. This kind of research is required to expose the viability and usage of the
legislation amidst its weakness. Whenever legislation is made, questions as to the adequacy of
the legislations and the ways to strengthen the legislations arise. The adequacy or otherwise of
the existing law may require more than a doctrinal form of research and we have decided to
look into an empirical basis for answering questions raised and will use both primary and
secondary sources of materials. The primary sources include the Constitution of Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999, Freedom of Information Act 2011 and Official Secrets Act 1990.
The work shall also rely on relevant international conventions, treaties, books, journals, case
laws, newspaper publications, and unpublished works will be another source of research
materials.
The stages of the proposed study are first, literature review on freedom of information in order
to be more knowledgeable about the scholars’ view. The second stage is outlining the chapters
of the work and analysis of the relevant issues around the research subject. The third stage is
the final writing and submitting copies.
EXPECTED FINDINGS
1. That Freedom of information is a fundamental human right
2. That by the provisions of freedom of information Act 2011 and Fundamental Rights
Enforcement procedure Rules 2009, there is no need for leave to seek judicial review
3. That security reason cannot be deployed to hide information save some conditions and
specific particulars are made available to the court

6. 4. That by FOIA 2011, information which will add value to knowledge cannot be
shrouded in secrecy.
5. That a third party cannot make an FOI application of any person save illiterate persons
6. That the limits of privacy of public official within the ambit of the Constitution of
Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Oath Act bows to the pressure of public interest.
7. That the National Assembly can legislate on public records of state government by
virtue of paragraph 68 of Part 1 second schedule to the constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria 1999
EXPECTATED CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
1. Access to information has moved to the center of global thoughts and compassion
2. The Freedom of Information Act has repealed the Official Secrets Act because the two
Acts are plainly repugnant to each other and effect cannot be given to both at the same
time.
3. That the factors to be put into consideration in determining whether there was a
breach of privacy include the oath of office, public interest, the volume of information
in question and corruption
4. FOIA is enforceable under Fundamental Human Rights enforcement Procedure
Rules2009
5. The requirement of a pre-action notice is merely ornamental in FOI suit.
6. Any person can apply for information and enforce the right to information, including
non-registered NGO’s.

7. 7. That by Johannesburg Principles9
there are legitimate grounds for using security as
a reason for withholding vital information. One of the principles states that, restriction
sought to be justified on national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose
and demonstrable effect is to protect a country existence or its territorial integrity
against the use of threat of force, whether from an external source such as a military
threat or internal threat like incitement to violently overthrow the government.
8. The study will enlighten lawmakers on the global trend of the constitutional right to
information and the limits thereof
9. The proposed suggestion for the extension of the period within which application can
be attended to is useful for law reform and policy formation.
10. That self-acclaimed security reason is not sufficient to turn freedom of information to
privacy of information.
11. That an abuse flowing from national security and counterterrorism policies10
is a
dis-incentive to the application of freedom of information.
12. That access to assets declared is an oversight responsibility of citizens’ over
representatives.
13. That the right to personal liberty11
guaranteed under the Constitution is not absolute
and fair interception of personal information does not infringe on the right to privacy
granted by the Constitution.12
9
Johannesburg Principles: National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information; Article 19:
(London: 1996), Available from: hhtp://www.article19.org/docimages/511.html. These principles have been
referred to by the UN Commission on Human Rights in each of their annual resolutions. See UN DOC. NOS. E
/CN.4/RES/2003/42, E/CN.4/RES/2002/48, E/ CN.4/RES/2001/47/E/RES/2000/38, E/CN.4/RES/1999/36;
E/CN.4/RES/1998/43; E/CN.4/RES/1997/27 and E/CN.4/ RES/1996/ 53
10
Linga, P; “Balancing National Security and Human Rights” (2006) 20, Lagos: NIALS.
11
Dokubo Asari v FRN (2007) NWLR pt. 1048

8. 14. That secret trial under the Act detracts from the aura of impartiality, independence,
publicity.13
15. That public interest14
is a wholly inconclusive phrase which requires the court to apply
the statutory standard without any definite guidelines.
16. It will amount to double compensation where the government pays general damages in
addition to statutory damages
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
12
Section 37 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999
13
NAB Ltd v Barri Eng. (Nig) Ltd (1995) 8 NWLR (PT.413) 276, See section 36 (3) of Constitution 1999
14
Usen, U. O; (2010) ‘Enthroning Public Interest litigation In the Nigeria Legal System: the Role of the Judiciary’.
Vol. 1 No.2 NBA: Eket

9. Arrowsmith, S; The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement, 2nd
Edition (London: Sweet &
Mazwell, 2005;
Badaiki, A. D; (2011). Interpretation of Statutes: The Letter or Spirit of the Law, 39th
Inaugural
lecture of Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma.
Bovis, C.H; EU Public Procurement Law (England: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007)
Birkinshaw, P; (2010) Freedom of Information: the Law, the Practice and the Ideal’, Cambridge
University Press: London
Caiden, G.E; in Jebbra and Dwivedi .O. (eds), ‘Public Service Accountability; A Comparative
Study’. Kumarian Press, Connecticut. 1988
Cooper, T; The Responsible Administrator, San Francisico. Jossey Bay (3rd
Edition, 1990)
Dele Olowu, Kayode, Adebayo (eds), Government and Democratization in Nigeria, Lagos:
Spectrum Books Ltd, 1995.
Ewere, A.O; (2011); NEITI and Good Governance in the Nigerian Oil Industry, Ambik Press:
Benin City
Odiase-Alegimenlen, O. A, and Ezekiel, M.P; The impact of State Ownership of Petroleum Oil
on Nigeria: A socio- legal perspectives, Benin City, Headmark Publishers, 2007
Normanton. E.L., In B.L.R. Smith and O.C. Hague (eds), The Delima of Accountability in Modern
Government. Macmillan, London. 1971.
Jenkinson, H. (1937). A manual of archives administration. London: Percy Lund, Humphries &
Co. Ltd.
Kepley, D. R. (1988). Reference service and access. In Bradsher, J. G. (ed.) Managing archives
and archival institutions. London: Mansell.

10. Kernathan. K. and Langford J., The Responsible Public Servants, Halifax Institute for Research
on Public Policy, And Institute of Public Administration, Canada
Gray, A; and Jenkins, W; “Administrative Politics in British Government”. Wheatsheaf Books Ltd,
Brighton, Sussex. (1985), pp. 136-167.
Nkoma, N; “The Role of Accountability In Public Administration”. In Sylvester Odion-Akhaine
(ed), CENCOP: Lagos, 2004. Pg 44.
Linga. P; “Balancing National Security and Human Rights” (2006) 20, Lagos: NIALS.
JOURNAL
Abiola, A; “Searchers' Perception of Access Regulations in Nigerian National Archives”, Library
Philosophy and Practice 2009
Adekunle D; ‘The Public service of Nigeria and the Freedom of Information Act 2011
JCLI: Federal Ministry of Justice vol. 5, 2013
Aigbokhan, P, “Freedom of Information Act of 2011: Incentive for Secrecy” NNHRCJ vol.3,
2013,
Atsegbua, L. A; “An Appraisal of Oil in Nigeria” in Atsegbua, L. A (ed) Selected Essays in
Petroleum and Environmental Laws, Benin City, Public Law Department, Uniben, 2000
Akech, J.M.M; “Development Partners and Governance of Public Procurement in Kenya:
Enhancing Democracy in the Administration of Aid” in International Law and Politics, Vol. 37,
829-868, available at www.Iilj.org/GAL/Documents.Develomentpartnenersgovernaceof.pdf;
Coliver, S (ed); The right to know: human rights and access to reproductive health information,
ARTICLE 19, International Centre against Censorship, 1995
Escaleras, M; Lin, S and Register, C; “Freedom of information acts and public sector corruption”,
Public Choice, (2010) 145
Ewing, K.D; ‘The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary Democracy’ (1999) 62 M.L.R. 79, 79

11. Frank; 2 Harv Civ. Rights. Civ.Lib. L. Rev. 621 (1976)
Falana, F; “Implementation Of The Freedom Of Information Act, 2011”, Paper Presented At The
Sensitization And Enlightenment Training On The Foia, 2011 For Board Members And
Management Staff Of The Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Presidential Hotel,
Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Idialu. J.U., “Towards An Effective Financial Management In Nigeria Churches’. In Don
Akhilomen (ed), Nigerian Journal of Christian Studies, Vol. 1, 2005, pp 60-61.
Okogbue, N.S “ An appraisal of the legal and institutional framework for combating
corruption in Nigeria”, (2006) Journal of Financial Crime, Vol.13 NO1,
Goldberg, W.M; (1999) ‘The Freedom of Information Act: Developing a Record for Appellate
Review’ GW LR, VOL. 67, No. 4
Keller, P; (1992) ‘Freedom of the Press in Hong Kong: Liberal Values and Sovereign Interests’
TILJ, vol. 27, No. 2.
Marks, A. N; (1999) “Freedom of Information Act: developing a record for appellate review”
GWL. Rev, vol. 67: 1033.
Moreham, N.A; (2005) “Privacy in Common Law” 121 LQR. 628
Moreham N. A; (2006) “Privacy in Public Places” CLJ. Vol.65, p.473-635
Murad M; “Improving Transparency Through Right to Information and E- Governance: A
Bangladesh Perspective” (2010) Volume 6 Issue 1. Open Government Journal.
Nader, freedom From Information: The Act and the agencies, 5 HARV. CIV. RIGHTS. LIB. L.
REV. 1 (1970)
Odinkalu, C.A; “Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Law: How friends launched a movement”
June 3, 2011. See http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/Nigeria-s-freedom-
information-law-how-friends-launched-movement

12. Odinkalu, C.A; “Two Years of the Freedom Of Information Act: Challenges & Prospects” In a
Seminar Organized by the Right To Know (R2K) Initiative and the Open Society Initiative for
West Africa (OSIWA), in Abuja, on 30-31 July, 2013.
Leith, P; (2011)2 “Current Issues in Research Access to Public Register Databases” EJLT No.2
Raine, T; Judicial Review Under the Human Rights Act: A Culture of Justification, Northeast Law
Review accessed on
https://research.ncl.ac.uk/media/sites/researchwebsites/northeastlawreview/Thomas%20Raine.p
df
Rosenfield F; (1976) “The Freedom of Information Act’s, Privacy Exemptions and the Privacy
Act of 1974” HCL. Rev. vol.11, 596
Shepherd, E., and Ennion, E. (2007). How has the implementation of the UK Freedom of
Information Act 2000 affected archives and records management services? Records
Management Journal 17 (1): 32 - 51.
Usen, U. O; (2010) ‘Enthroning Public Interest litigation In the Nigeria Legal System: the Role
of the Judiciary’. Vol. 1 No.2 NBA: Eket
Warren S. D and Brandeis, L.D; “The Right to Privacy” Harvard Law Review (1890), vol.4
Zac, F and Johnson, H et al (2010). ‘Sustaining Transparency?: Journalists, Government
Officials and the Minnesota Data Protection Act’, vol..6, Issue 1