The Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre (RUDILAC) strongly condemns the imposition of a ₦100 million processing fee by the Kano State Ministry of Works in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
This action represents a clear and troubling attempt to undermine transparency and restrict citizens’ access to public records.
On 10 October 2025, a human rights and anti-corruption advocate, Umar Ibrahim Umar, submitted an FOI request to the Kano State Ministry of Works seeking critical public interest information, including the list of projects, names of contractors, project timelines, and Bills of Quantities (BoQ). The Ministry responded only on 10 March 2026—five months after receipt, citing administrative delay and subsequently demanding an exorbitant ₦100 million as a condition for access.
This demand raises serious concerns about the growing use of prohibitive fees as a tool for indirect denial of access to information.
Such practices violate both the letter and spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, which guarantees citizens the right to access public records without unreasonable barriers.
This is not an isolated incident. A similar case arose from a request by Messrs. VC Ottaokpukpu to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for access to the national voters’ register and polling unit data. INEC responded with a staggering processing fee of ₦1,505,901,750.00.
This prompted a legal action. RUDILAC, in collaboration with FOI Counsel, instituted a suit before the ECOWAS Court of Justice (Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/06/2026) against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The suit challenges the imposition of excessive fees that effectively impair the right of access to information and seeks orders compelling public institutions to comply with FOI standards.
The Freedom of Information Act is unequivocal. Section 8(1) limits processing fees strictly to standard costs associated with duplication and transcription of records. It does not permit arbitrary or punitive charges designed to discourage access.
Public institutions are under a statutory obligation to establish functional FOI units or desks, respond promptly and substantively to requests. Also, to submit annual FOI compliance reports, maintain updated and accessible public information platforms, and ensure professionalism in handling requests. These are not optional standards; they are the minimum requirements for accountability in a democratic society.
Access to information is a cornerstone of participatory governance, anti-corruption efforts, and sustainable development. Imposing prohibitive fees effectively excludes citizens, civil society organizations, and researchers from engaging in governance processes.
Globally, the cost of administering FOI systems is recognized as a public investment in transparency. Governments bear these costs because the long-term benefits, reduced corruption, improved public service delivery, and increased trust, far outweigh the administrative burden.
RUDILAC calls on the Kano State Government to immediately withdraw the ₦100 million fee demand, release the requested information without further delay and publish the requested records proactively on its official platforms.
Compliance will not only align with legal obligations but also signal a genuine commitment to transparency and public accountability in the state.
To prevent recurrence, RUDILAC urges all public institutions to integrate FOI implementation into their annual budgets, allocate dedicated funding for records management and disclosure systems, strengthen proactive disclosure mechanisms to reduce reliance on reactive requests.
Transparency should not be treated as a privilege for those who can afford it. It is a fundamental right and a necessary condition for democratic governance.