WHY LEAVE FOR MANDAMUS WAS REFUSED
After a critical study of the ruling in the aforementioned suit, the underlisted reasons are observed as reasons why the court refused to grant leave for mandamus. First, in the words of the court, leave for mandamus was refused both on technical ground and on merit. But here are the fuller reasons:
1. The Judge in his wisdom held the view that Freedom of Information Act, 2011 is not binding on the state government.
2. The judge, in one breath, declined to grant leave on the reason that Applicant (ITBBYDI) is a busy body and meddlesome interloper not being a Kwaran, whether “artificial” or “natural”. But in another breath, the court held that Applicant failed to prove her existence as a corporate entity.
3. The court further held that the letter of request (e-mail) to state government written by the Applicant under FOI, being a public document, was not proved in accordance with the extent law.
4. The learned trial judge held that the Applicant failed to substantial her claim why disclosure of the requested information is beneficial to the people of Kwara state.
5. Lastly, the court also held that the scope of the Applicant as an incorporated trustee does not extend to or include advocacy on transparency and good governance.
In the light of the foregoing, I am of the considered view that the refusal to grant Applicant’s prayer for mandamus under Freedom of Information Act, 2011 is more on technical ground than on the merit in view of the extent position of law settled by both the substantive and procedural law.