When Transparency Becomes Luxury: INEC and ₦1.5B FOI Controversy By Chike Walter Duru
When the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) recently demanded a staggering ₦1.5 billion from a law firm for access to the national register of voters and polling units, many Nigerians were left bewildered. The request was made under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, 2011 – a law designed to make public records accessible, not to commercialize them. INEC’s justification, couched in legalese and bureaucratic arithmetic, raises a deeper question: Is Nigeria’s electoral umpire genuinely committed to transparency and accountability?
At the heart of this controversy is a simple statutory principle. Section 8(1) of the Freedom of Information Act clearly stipulates that where access to information is granted, the public institution may charge “an amount representing the actual cost of document duplication and transcription.” The framers of this law envisioned modest fees; not financial barriers.
INEC, however, appears to have stretched this provision beyond reason. By invoking its internal guideline of ₦250 per page, the Commission arrived at the colossal figure of ₦1,505,901,750 for 6,023,607 pages – supposedly the total pages needed to print the entire national voters’ register and polling unit list. It is a mathematical exercise that may be sound on paper, but absurd in context and intent.
Let us be clear: transparency is not a privilege that comes with a price tag. It is a fundamental right. The Freedom of Information Act exists precisely to ensure that institutions like INEC cannot hide behind bureaucracy or cost to deny citizens access to information that belongs to them.
INEC’s justification, however elaborate, falls flat against the law’s overriding provisions. Section 1(1) of the FOI Act affirms every Nigerian’s right to access or request information from any public institution. More importantly, Section 1(2) establishes that this right applies “notwithstanding anything contained in any other Act, law or regulation.” This means that no internal guideline, regulation, or provision of the Electoral Act can supersede the FOI Act, within the context of access to information.
By relying on Section 15 of the Electoral Act 2022 and its own “Guidelines for Processing Certified True Copies,” INEC seems to have elevated its internal processes above a federal statute – a position that is both legally untenable and administratively misguided.
Civil society organisations have rightly condemned INEC’s response. The Media Initiative Against Injustice, Violence and Corruption (MIIVOC) called the fee arbitrary and unlawful, while the Media Rights Agenda (MRA) described it as a deliberate attempt to frustrate legitimate requests under the FOI Act. These reactions are not misplaced. Charging ₦1.5 billion for public records is tantamount to weaponising cost – turning what should be a transparent process into a pay-to-play system.
Read Also:
The Attorney-General of the Federation’s FOI Implementation Guidelines pegged the standard charge for duplication at ₦10 per page. Even at that rate, printing the same documents would not amount to anything close to ₦1.5 billion. Moreover, in an age of digital data, it is difficult to believe that the only way INEC can share information is through millions of printed pages.
It is worth noting that the National Register of Voters is a digital database – already compiled, stored, and backed up electronically. The polling unit list is also digitised and publicly available. What, then, justifies this astronomical fee?
Democracy thrives on openness. The credibility of any electoral body depends not just on the conduct of elections, but also on the degree of public confidence in its processes. If the cost of accessing basic electoral data runs into billions, how can civil society, researchers, or ordinary citizens participate meaningfully in democratic oversight?
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ Guidelines on Access to Information and Elections in Africa (2017) are explicit: election management bodies must proactively disclose essential electoral information, including voters’ rolls and polling unit data. Nigeria, as a signatory to this framework, is obligated to promote – not restrict access to such information.
By placing financial barriers in the way of public access, INEC risks undermining not only its own credibility but also Nigeria’s broader democratic integrity. Transparency should not be a privilege of the rich or the powerful. It should be a right enjoyed by all.
This incident presents an opportunity for reflection and reform. INEC must immediately review its internal cost guidelines for information requests and align them with the FOI Act and the Attorney-General’s Implementation Guidelines. More importantly, it should embrace proactive disclosure by publishing the national register of voters and polling units in digital formats that are freely accessible to the public.
There is no reason why information already stored electronically should require billions to access. Doing so not only contravenes the spirit of the FOI Act but also erodes public trust in the Commission’s commitment to open governance.
Access to information is the lifeblood of democracy. It empowers citizens to hold institutions accountable and ensures that governance remains transparent. INEC’s ₦1.5 billion charge is not merely excessive; it is a dangerous precedent that could embolden other public institutions to commercialize public data and silence scrutiny.
If Nigeria must advance its democratic gains, the culture of secrecy and bureaucratic obstruction must give way to openness and accountability. INEC should lead that transformation, not stand in its way.
The Commission owes Nigerians not just elections, but the truth, transparency, and trust that sustain democracy.
Dr. Chike Walter Duru is a communications and governance expert, public relations strategist, and Associate Professor of Mass Communication. He chairs the Board of the Freedom of Information Coalition, Nigeria. Contact: [email protected]
