CBN Acting Governor, Deputy Sued for Failing to Declare Assets

The Network Against Corruption and Trafficking Foundation (NACAT) has initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Folashodun Shonubi, who is currently serving as the acting Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), as well as Mr. Edward Adamu, a Deputy Governor at the same institution.

NACAT has alleged that both individuals did not fulfill their obligation to declare their assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB).

The legal action was taken by NACAT through their legal representative, John Ainetor from Festus Keyamo Chambers, and it was filed in a Federal High Court in Abuja. The Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau has also been named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

The basis for this legal action is Section 1(1) and (2) of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act from the year 2011.

The case has been assigned the reference number FHC/ABJ/CS/1182/2023 and is dated August 25, 2023.

Supporting the initial motion ex parte, an affidavit has been sworn by Stanley Ugagbe, the operational manager of NACAT. This affidavit asserts that the respondents (Mr. Shonubi and Mr. Adamu) have refused to disclose specific documents as required.

Ugagbe further explains that, in their roles as public officials, the second and third respondents (Mr. Shonubi and Mr. Adamu) have a legal obligation to declare any interests they might hold in specific companies when they assume their positions as acting Governor and Deputy Governor.

What he said

He said:

• “The applicant has a right under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, to access the Assets and Liabilities Declaration Forms of the second and third respondents in the records of the first respondent, concerning the declaration of the second and third respondents’ interests in the said companies.
• “The applicant has made a demand under the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 to the respondents for them to produce the Assets and Liabilities Declaration Forms, where the second and third respondents declared their interests in the said companies, but the respondents failed, refused and neglected to produce the said documents.”

The applicant argued that court intervention was necessary to enforce the request made to the first and second respondents, in line with Section 1 (3) of the Freedom of Information Act.

The applicant’s requests were based on the fact that it had previously sent letters on July 3, 2023, and August 14, 2023, seeking the documents from the respondents, but they declined to comply.