The Outcome of Sesugh Akume vs Governor of Benue State & Another (MHC/293/2020) and Sesugh Akume vs Government of Benue State & 4 Others (MHC/294/2020)

On Wednesday 17 March 2021, 2 separate judgements were entered in the High Court of Benue State sitting in Makurdi, on the same day, after several adjourned dates for the judgements, in 2 public interest matters for the common good pertaining to local government autonomy and enforcement of freedom of information rights.

The Honourable Mr Justice W I Kpochi (who was also the trial judge in Sesugh Akume v Governor of Benue (MHC/182/2019) itself a lawsuit towards to local government autonomy) REFUSED to declare null and void section 36(5) of the Benue Local Government Law 2007, which empowers the governor to suspend (including indefinitely) duly-elected local government chairmen on mere allegations of corruption (whether true or false) without fair hearing.

To be sure, fair hearing is a guaranteed fundamental human right enshrined in the Constitution. Second, the Supreme Court is firm against the practice of sacking elected local government chairmen.

The trial judge further declined answering whether there are other lawful deductions from local government accounts by the state government, other than the Pension and Local Government Training Funds (enshrined in section 72 and 76 of the Local Government Law) and, therefore, declined to declare any deductions from local government accounts outside these two known to law as illegal.

Furthermore, sections 78(4) and 79(2) of the same law empower the governor to reallocate and distribute federal allocations to local governments in any manner he chooses. Federal allocations to the local government are according to law by a formula, not by whims and caprices of individuals. Second, appropriation is not the duty of the executive, nor is it lawful to reappropriate what has been appropriated by law. The court also REFUSED to declare these sections unlawful.

In the second matter, I had made Freedom of Information (FOI) applications which were denied by the accountant-general of Benue state, and the chairman, Logo Local Government Area and sought redress. The Honourable Justice A I Ityonyiman declined to answer whether accounts and financial records of local governments are classified documents. Also, whether it is not the duty of public institutions (including states and local governments) to publish their books; and whether the FOI Act 2011 does not apply to all public institutions at all levels.

To this end, he REFUSED to declare that they erred to have denied me the information requested. Also that the FOI Act is applicable to all public institutions; and that states and local governments must publish their books (in the same manner the federal government does) for purposes of transparency, probity and accountability including citizens’ participation in their government; etc.
Rather, the trial judge resolved that I lacked the locus standi (the right to sue) in this matter, as I did not show sufficient proof of how the matter affected me as person, alone or more than anyone else.

For clarity, section 1 of the FOI Act 2011 is explicit and makes it abundantly clear that no one need demonstrate any particular interest in any matter at all to make and be granted an FOI application.

His lordship also resolved that seeing as the judgement as sought would affect other local government areas, all 23 of them in Benue ought to have been joined as parties in the suit.

With respect to the his lordship, the judgement as sought would affect all public institutions in Benue (and beyond) not only the 23 local government areas. It is, therefore, not realistic to join them all in the suit; before an interpretation of relevant sections of a law is made and judgement entered, nor is it necessary to join all nominal parties in lawsuit, the Supreme Court has stated clearly.

One tends to find the views of the trial judges in these matters rather strange, and the judgements perverse with due respect, but not surprising at all. The implications of these two lawsuits are far-reaching and disruptive. It will, therefore, be naïve for one to expect victory at the State High Court, for obvious reasons.

This outcome in no way deters us nor dampens our resolve. We shall be appealing the judgements (making it the third appeal) as we pursue the other ongoing public interest cases at the Federal High Court and Appeal Court bringing it to a total of 16 public interest cases.

I thank immensely, the erudite attorney, my brother and friend, Moses Lubem Ukpo, Esq., for his brilliance, legal enteprise, resilience, sacrifice and patriotism in diligently pursuing this matter.

For us it is, NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER!✊🏾

Sesugh Akume