SERAP drags PDP, APC to court over non-disclosure of 2015 elections spending
(Nigeria) A civil society group, Socio-Economic Rights and
Accountability Project, SERAP, has dragged the All Progressives Congress, APC
and People’s Democratic Party, PDP, to court over their “failure to disclose their
sources of spending on their respective electoral campaigns and other
operations linked to the February 2015 general elections.”
The separate suits before the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos is pursuant to the Freedom of Information requests to PDP National Chairman Alhaji Ahmadu Mu'azu and APC National Chairman Chief John Odigie-Oyegun.
The originating summons against the PDP with suit number and
against the APC with suit number were brought pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act, and signed by SERAP Senior Staff Attorney,
Olukayode Majekodunmi.
The plaintiff is arguing that under the FOI Act, “Nigerians
have the right to know about spending by their political parties especially the
major parties with a strong possibility to assume government in the future.
Citizens should be able to examine financial transactions of parties and be
certain that politicians are working for their voters, not their benefactors.”
The plaintiff also
argues that, both the APC and PDP “Cannot take the position that the FOI Act
does not apply to them because to do so will seriously undermine citizens’
trust in their political parties and lack of trust will inevitably destroy
confidence in the system and decrease citizens’ interest and participation in
democratic processes.”
The plaintiff also said that “Without free and fair
elections there can be no democracy. However, elections are only one part of
the democratic process, and a fair and effective electoral system must be
founded in an adequate democratic infrastructure and responsibility of
political leaders.”
The plaintiff wants the court to determine “Whether by
virtue of the provision of section 4(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011,
the Defendants are under an obligation to provide the Plaintiff with the
information requested for.”
The plaintiff is seeking: a declaration that by virtue of the provisions of Section 4
(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, the Defendants are under a binding
legal obligation to provide the Plaintiff with up to date information relating
to the following:
1. Information
about the spending and sources of income derived from federal, state and other
institutions, agencies or persons for the campaigns and other operations of the
Defendants related to the February 2015 elections.
2. The total
amounts that have been spent and the anticipated spending and the sources of
any such spending related to the February 2015 general elections.
3. Total
contributions received by the Defendants for or on behalf of their Presidential
candidate and candidates for the governorship elections and the sources of any
such contributions.
Earlier in its FOI requests, the plaintiff had expressed
“serious concerns about the risks of corruption during electoral campaigns for
the February 2015 general elections, especially the role of money in politics
and the persistent failure generally to comply with national and international
law on political party finance.”
According to the plaintiff, “Releasing the information will
help to address the perception among the citizens that the major political
parties in the countries are less transparent and accountable. The lack of
transparency and accountability in political finance is seriously undermining
the legitimacy and credibility of the democratic and electoral processes, and
invariably contributing to denying the citizens the right to effective
participation in their own government.”
The plaintiff further argued that, “Transparency,
accountability, integrity and independence of political parties is also
important to achieve greater transparency in public life, to curb the influence
of money in politics, to promote a level playing field, and to remove the risks
to the independence of political actors and would-be public office holders and
the risks of conflicts of interest, including undue influence and corruption in
the funding of political parties.”
According to the plaintiff, “By virtue of Section 1 (1) of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011, SERAP is entitled as of right to
request for or gain access to information being requested. Under the FOI Act,
your party is under a binding legal obligation to provide the applicant with
the information requested for, except as otherwise provided by the Act, within
7 days after the application is received.”
The plaintiff also said that, “By Sections 2(3)(d)(V) &
(4) of the FOI Act, there is a binding legal duty to ensure that documents
containing the necessary information are widely disseminated and made readily
available to members of the public through various means. The information being
requested does not come within the purview of the types of information exempted
from disclosure by the provisions of the FOI Act.”
Comments
Post a Comment