Nigeria has a voting population of 93. 4 milliion and these records are stored by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in both hard and digital formats.
A recent request by Messrs. VC Ottaokpukpu & Associates to INEC has generated significant public debate. The law firm requested access to the complete national voters’ register and the list of existing polling units in all electoral wards across Nigeria.
In response, INEC estimated the cost of processing the request at ₦1,505,901,750.00 (One Billion, Five Hundred and Five Million, Nine Hundred and One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira Only). This staggering figure has raised questions about transparency, cost justification, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2011.
The Ottaokpukpu case has spotlighted the urgent need for a campaign to enforce proactive disclosure mandates on public institutions and ensure budgetary appropriations for record management and public access.
Under the FOIA, every public institution has a statutory obligation to organize and maintain its records in a way that facilitates easy access. Even where the applicant does not specify a preferred format for delivery, the Commission still bears a legal duty to manage information efficiently and transparently.
INEC’s response and recent further claraificaiton on the cost raises a broader issue of an indirect denial of access by imposing exorbitant costs which violates both the spirit and letter of the FOIA
The key benchmarks for measuring FOIA compliance are clear and non-negotiable: every public institution must establish a dedicated FOI Desk or Unit, respond promptly and fully to information requests, submit annual compliance reports to the Attorney General of the Federation, update their websites with accurate and accessible public information, treat requesters with professionalism and courtesy, and continuously train staff on FOI standards and obligations. These are not procedural niceties, they are the core indicators of transparency and accountability in public service.
FOIA operates reactively in Nigeria, dependent almost entirely on individual requests while proactive disclosure remains weak across most MDAs. Yet, Section 8(1) of the Act clearly stipulates that FOI processing fees must be limited to standard charges for document duplication and transcription (where applicable). For comparison, the United Kingdom records an average processing time of seven and a half hours per FOI request, with detailed cost-accounting systems.
Applying this logic to Nigeria’s electoral data, a national voters’ register of 93.4 million names, at roughly 40 names per A2 page-paper, would amount to about 2.3 million sheets. By INEC’s arithmetic, each sheet costs ₦250 to duplicate, bringing the grand total to over a billion naira. At that price, one might expect the papers to be printed on gold leaf, not A2 sheets. The figure sent to VC Ottaokpukpu reads “production fee” more like an election budget forwarded to the National Assembly. Clearly, someone at the Commission needs a refresher in both transparency and basic mathematics.
In Nigeria, calculating the precise cost of FOIA compliance is difficult because public officers are not remunerated based on time spent per task, and most agencies do not track administrative costs.does the Commission maintain accurate records of the hours spent by public officers on FOI matters and the associated non-labour costs such as consultations, printing, or data retrieval? The absence of such accounting practices has resulted in inflated and inconsistent FOI processing fees across Nigerian MDAs
Globally, the cost of administering FOIA is largely absorbed by governments, not applicants. In the United States, the total cost of all FOIA-related activities across federal agencies in the 2024 fiscal year was estimated at $725.8 million, with only 0.3% recovered through user fees. In the United Kingdom, the average administrative cost per FOI request is £293, with printing costs at 10 pence per black-and-white A4 page and 50 pence for colour. In Canada, the average annual processing cost is about CA$30 million, while in Ireland, total FOI administration over twelve years cost €66.6 million. In all these cases, governments cover approximately 99% of the operational costs, recognizing that access to information is a public good, not a revenue source.
Governments should therefore avoid passing the administrative costs of transparency onto citizens. The cost of responding to FOI requests is typically five times higher than the fees payable, yet these expenses are justified as essential to democracy, accountability, and civic participation.
The INEC case underscores a pressing question: Where is a private citizen or law firm expected to raise over one billion naira to access public information? Denying access based on such costs effectively disenfranchises citizens from participating in governance.
To prevent future controversies, public institutions must budget explicitly for FOIA implementation. Adequate financial resources are required not only to respond to individual requests but also to develop the proactive disclosure infrastructure envisioned under the law.
As the new INEC Chairman takes office, he must immediately withdraw the excessive fee demand and order the publication of the national voters’ register, including names, photographs, ages, and sex, on the Commission’s official website. Doing so will not only fulfill INEC’s proactive disclosure obligation under the Freedom of Information Act but also send a clear message that a new sheriff has indeed assumed the highest seat of the electoral umpire, one committed to openness, accountability, and public trust.
President Aigbokhan is the Lead Counsel of FOI Counsel. He can be reached via president@foicounsel.com