Insecurity: Court urged to decline request for disclosure of insurgency war’s cost

An Abuja-based lawyer yesterday pleaded with a Federal High Court, Abuja, to decline a request for the disclosure of the amount so far spent on the prosecution of the war against insurgency and other security challenges.

Osaze Agbonifo contended that  disclosure of such information to any unauthorized body would not be in the nation’s best interest.

Agbonifo’s  request forms part of the reliefs in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/159018.

The suit, according to the plaintiff, is informed by a request by a group, Global Integrity Crusade Network (GICN), to some security agencies  to disclose the cost of prosecuting the war against insurgency in the North East under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

Respondents in the suit are the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA),  Ministry of Defence (MD), State Security Service (SSS), National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Nigerian Army (NA), Nigerian Air Force (NAF), Nigerian Navy (NN),  Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS).

Agbonifo prayed   the court for an order restraining the respondents from releasing details of security spendings to any civil society organisation (CSO) acting under the FOI Act.

He also sought   an order restraining the respondents from releasing or furnishing GICN or any civil society organization,  persons or entities that have applied for any information relating to or connected with the war against insurgency in the North East Under the FOI Act.

Read also: Arewa Community in Lagos to hold mega rally for Sanwo-Olu

The plaintiff also asked the court not to allow the respondents release the following information:

*The amount received as budgetary allocations from the federal government of Nigeria for counter-terrorism operation in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 respectively.

*The list of security hardware and equipment procured for counter-terrorism operations in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 so we can confirm, if the approved budgetary allocations were used for the intended purpose.

*List of contracts awarded,  executed or ongoing in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as well as of list of newspapers,  journals and other media outfits wherein the bidding exercises for the said contracts were published to enable us ascertain if the procedures laid down in the Public Procurement Act No. 65 of 2007 were duly followed.

*The breakdown of costs  expended by your office on personnel running in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 to enable us ascertain if more than one third of the budgetary allocation meant for counter terrorism operations was not used for payment of allowances to only top management staffer.

The case is yet to be assigned for hearing.