News
Federal High Court Orders CBN to Disclose Foreign Exchange Subsidy Information in Response to Request from HEDA
By Abubakar Yunus, Abuja
THE Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled in favor of the Incorporated Trustees of Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA Resource Centre) in a case against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). The court’s decision, based on suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1622/2020, comes after the CBN denied HEDA Resource Centre’s Freedom of Information (FoI) request.
The leading Anti-corruption Organization, HEDA, had initially submitted a comprehensive FoI request to the CBN on November 14, 2020, seeking detailed information about the CBN’s schemes designed to sell the dollar at subsidized rates.
The request included specific details such as the disbursed amounts under each scheme, sector-wise breakdowns, and beneficiary information related to the forex intervention scheme. Unfortunately, the CBN did not respond to the FoI request, prompting HEDA Resource Centre to pursue legal action to challenge the CBN’s denial.
In response, the CBN filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection on November 3, 2021, but the court ultimately dismissed it. The CBN later submitted a counter-affidavit on February 2, 2022, denying possession of the requested information.
HEDA, through its lawyer Seidu Mohammed, countered with a further affidavit and a Reply Address on February 18, 2022, supported by 11 exhibits. These exhibits, obtained from the CBN’s website, included circulars illustrating the provision of concessional exchange rates for pilgrims’ Personal Travel Allowance (PTA).
Upon examination, the court deemed these exhibits as substantial evidence supporting HEDA Resource Centre’s claim that the CBN had indeed been providing foreign exchange subsidies. As a result, the court held the CBN responsible for producing reports regarding the extent of its involvement in these schemes, including information from banks regarding the beneficiaries.
In its judgment, the court emphasized the vital role of public access to information and records in ensuring accountability, transparency, citizen participation, and good governance within a democracy.
The Freedom of Information (FoI) Act was established precisely to promote transparency and combat corruption. The court unequivocally asserted that all institutions and government agencies must comply with the provisions of the Act in the interest of justice, transparency, and national development.
Consequently, the court has issued a compelling order to the CBN, a public institution, to disclose the information requested by HEDA in their FoI request. The court deemed the CBN’s failure to provide the information as unlawful, resulting in an order of Mandamus to release the requested information outlined in HEDA’s FoI request dated October 14, 2020.
The United Kingdom has announced plans to introduce new fees for passport applications starting from April 10, 2025.
In a statement on Thursday, the UK Home Office said the fee increase, which is subject to approval by the parliament, aims to help move towards a self-sustaining system, reducing its reliance on funding from general taxation.
According to the proposals, the fee for a standard online application made from within the UK will rise from £88.50 to £94.50 for adults and £57.50 to £61.50 for children.
Postal applications will also see an increase, from £100 to £107 for adults and £69 to £74 for children.
The premium service (one day) application fee made from within the UK will rise from £207.50 to £222 for adults and £176.50 to £189 for children.
Overseas applicants will also face increased fees, with standard online applications rising from £101 to £108 for adults and £65.50 to £70 for children.
“The fee for a standard online application when applying from overseas for a UK passport will rise from £101 to £108 for adults and £65.50 to £70 for children,” the statement reads.
“Overseas standard paper applications will increase from £112.50 to £120.50 for adults and £77 to £82.50 for children.”
The UK government noted that it does not make any profit from passport application fees, which contribute to the cost of processing applications, consular support overseas, and border control.
The Home Office advised applicants to submit their applications well in advance of their travel dates.
“In 2024, 99.7% of standard applications from the UK were processed within three weeks, provided no additional information was required,” the Home Office said.
Sudan Army said it is close to taking control of the Presidential Palace in Khartoum from the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.
State TV reported on Thursday, in a significant milestone in a two-year- old conflict that threatens to fracture the country.
The RSF quickly took the palace and most of the capital at the outbreak of war in April 2023, but the Sudanese Armed Forces has in recent months staged a comeback and inched towards the palace along the River Nile.
The RSF, which earlier this year began establishing a parallel government, maintains control of parts of Khartoum and neighbouring Omdurman, as well as western Sudan, where it is fighting to take control of the army’s last stronghold in Darfur, al-Fashir.
The taking of the capital could hasten the army’s full takeover of central Sudan, and harden the east-west territorial division of the country between the two forces.
Both sides have vowed to continue fighting for the remainder of the country, and no efforts at peace talks had materialised.
The war erupted amid a power struggle between Sudan’s army and the RSF ahead of a planned transition to civilian rule.
The conflict has led to what the U.N. calls the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, causing famine in several locations and disease across the country.
I t said that both sides have been accused of war crimes, while the RSF has also been charged with genocide. Both forces deny the charges.
The fight for the Presidential Palace has raged over the past several weeks, with the RSF fighting fiercely to maintain control, including via snipers placed around surrounding downtown buildings.
However, its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, instructed troops earlier this week not to give up the palace.
Late on Wednesday into Thursday morning, explosions could be heard from airstrikes and drone attacks by the army targeting central Khartoum, witnesses and military sources told Reuters.
The army has long maintained the advantage of air power over the RSF, though the paramilitary group has shown evidence of increased drone capabilities recently.
On the Telegram messenger app, the RSF said its forces were making advances towards the Army General Command, also in central Khartoum, and eyewitnesses said the force was attacking from southern Khartoum.
The army’s advance in central Sudan since late last year has been welcomed by many people, who had been displaced by the RSF, which has been accused of widespread looting and arbitrary killings, and of occupying homes and neighbourhoods.
The RSF denies the charges and says individual perpetrators will be brought to justice.
Hundreds of thousands of people have returned to their homes in Central Sudan, though late on Wednesday activists in Omdurman warned that some soldiers have engaged in robbery.
The military has routinely denied such allegations.(dpa/NAN)
The Igbo Ministers Commission of South East has again restated that the Nigerian government cannot fairly prosecute the leader of the Igbo nation agitators, Nnamdi Kanu on terrorism charges and any other offense known to law.
The group in objecting to the trial of Kanu by the federal government, predicated its opposition on the alleged breach by the country of its own laws and international obligations.
In a statement on Thursday, in Abuja, the Ministers faulted the way and manner Kanu was brought in 2021 to the country through what they described as “kidnapping and state sponsored international banditry”.
Rev Tony Uzo Anthony, the international President of the concerned Igbo Ministers Commission signed the statement on behalf of his colleagues.
The statement read in part “We understand that the upcoming trial of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, scheduled to begin on 21 March 2025 in Abuja, has raised many questions and concerns.
“As this case is of great public interest, we believe it is important to break down the key legal issues in simple terms so that everyone can understand what is at stake.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the great and noble family of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is being tried on charges related to terrorism- they have abandoned treason and treasonable felony after many years of maligning our leader and peddling worthless charges all because they want to cripple his legitimate right to agitate for Biafra.
“The fact remains that the way he was brought back to Nigeria—through kidnapping and state sponsored international banditry—has raised serious legal questions.
“The Supreme Court judgement that nullified the sound judgement of the Appeal Court that discharged him and referred the matter back to the high court, is now dead on arrival. This case is restarting from scratch (de Novo), which means all previous proceedings are set aside, and the trial will begin anew.
“Can Nigeria prosecute Onyendu for Terrorism After Breaking International Laws? Nigeria’s Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022 defines terrorism as acts committed to further an ideology (political, religious, racial, or ethnic) that violate international treaties.
“The abduction of Onyendu, an act described as criminal by the Nigeria’s apex court, violated several international treaties Nigeria has signed. This raises the question: Can a government that breaks its own laws and international obligations fairly prosecute someone for terrorism?
“Section 19(d) of the Nigerian Constitution requires the government to respect international laws and treaties. By abducting the IPOB Leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the government of Nigeria has broken these laws as confirmed by the Supreme Court, which weakens Nigeria’s moral and legal standing in this case.
“The TPPA 2022 replaced an older law, the TPPA 2013. The new law allows the government to continue using the old law for cases that started before the change.
“However, since this case is restarting from scratch, courts have ruled that old laws cannot be used for new cases. This means the government will not be able to rely on the old law to charge him.
“Starting de Novo means the case is beginning anew, as if the previous trial never happened. This makes it harder for the government to use old laws or past actions to justify new charges. This means that he can no longer be charged under the old law which is the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act (TPAA) 2013.
“This case is not just about Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu; it is about the rule of law and the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system. If the government can break its own laws and international treaties, it sets a dangerous precedent for how citizens are treated. A fair and transparent trial is essential to uphold justice and maintain public trust in the legal system.
“We urge the international community to prevail upon the Nigerian government to
ensure that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial is conducted in the open and is seen to be fair and transparent, in line with the laws of Nigeria and especially its Constitution and international laws.
“Government should avoid using outdated laws to prosecute him, as this would be against legal principles and a violation of the Constitution of Nigeria. It should uphold the rule of law and respect for human rights, which are the foundation of any democratic society.
“The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a test of Nigeria’s commitment to justice and the rule of law. We call on all nations and peoples of the world to pay attention to this case and demand a process that is fair, transparent, and respectful of the municipal laws and international obligations.
“Together, we can ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done”, the statement said.