Reported By Mary Udezue | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Government of Nigeria to publicly disclose the identities of individuals implicated in the alleged misappropriation of more than N6 trillion in funds meant for the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), but the names have not yet been released, prompting renewed calls from civil society for transparency and enforcement of the court’s directive.
The judgment, delivered on 10 November 2025 by Justice Gladys Olotu following a Freedom of Information suit filed by the Socio‑Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), compels President Bola Tinubu and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to comply with the order to publish both the NDDC forensic audit report and the names of all persons indicted in it. The ruling stems from litigation seeking to force the government to make the findings of the long‑delayed audit public, including those whose actions reportedly contributed to the loss of vast public resources intended to implement 13,777 projects across the Niger Delta region.
In the course of the litigation (Freedom of Information suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1360/2021), the court determined the forensic audit and the list of persons named in it constitute “public records” under the Freedom of Information Act, and are therefore subject to mandatory disclosure. The orders of mandamus issued by Justice Olotu are clear that the president must instruct the AGF to publish this information widely and make the audit report accessible to the public.
Despite the clarity of the court’s directive, the actual names of those indicted have not been published by the federal government, and the forensic audit report remains withheld as of mid‑December 2025. In response, SERAP has written formally to both President Tinubu and AGF Fagbemi to demand immediate compliance with the court order, emphasising that failure to enforce judicial decisions undermines the rule of law and constitutional governance in Nigeria.
In a letter dated 13 December 2025, SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, warned of potential contempt proceedings against the Attorney General if the judgment is not executed swiftly. The organisation underscored that ignoring court orders not only makes a mockery of the judiciary but also signals tolerance for impunity in the management of public funds. SERAP pointed to Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which mandates that decisions of Nigerian courts be enforced throughout the federation, and argued that there is no constitutional basis for delay or refusal.
The court’s order followed years of civil society agitation over the NDDC’s financial management. The forensic audit, completed and submitted to the federal government on 2 September 2021, was commissioned to examine the NDDC’s activities between 2000 and 2019, a period during which the commission received billions of naira intended for development projects in the oil‑producing Niger Delta states. According to SERAP and allied transparency advocates, the audit uncovered significant financial mismanagement, detailing abandoned projects and apparent diversion of funds.
While SERAP has publicly called for the disclosure of names and accountability for those implicated, the government has not yet honoured the court’s timeline. The lack of transparency has drawn criticism from legal experts and anti‑corruption campaigners, who argue that releasing the audit and the list of indicted individuals is essential for restoring public confidence in governance and combating systemic corruption.
In her judgment, Justice Olotu explicitly stated that both the forensic audit report and the names of those identified in the audit do not fall under any exemption provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, and that the government’s previous refusal to publish the information constituted a breach of statutory duties under the Act and Section 15(5) of the Constitution. She affirmed that public access to these records is a constitutional right tied to accountability in the use and management of public funds.
Legal analysts note that the court’s decision and SERAP’s push for enforcement highlight ongoing challenges in implementing judicial orders in high‑profile governance cases. Observers say that full compliance would not only uphold constitutional principles but also set a precedent in Nigeria’s fight against corruption, particularly in high‑impact sectors such as national development commissions.
Civil society groups have also stressed that publishing the names and making the audit report accessible could empower other oversight institutions, including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), to initiate investigations where warranted. Transparency advocates argue that naming individuals linked to alleged misappropriation could allow for targeted prosecutions and recovery of public assets, which in turn could benefit development efforts in the Niger Delta.
Calls for greater openness come amid broader public concerns over governance in Nigeria, where citizens and watchdog groups frequently demand accountability for alleged misuse of public funds. Many Nigerians have expressed frustration that despite repeated audits, inquiries, and commissions of inquiry into federal agencies, full disclosure of implicated individuals and subsequent prosecution often remain elusive.
The NDDC scandal, involving a figure often cited as exceeding N6 trillion, symbolizes the deep mistrust citizens hold towards government transparency in managing development resources. If the names were to be published, they would likely include a mix of senior public officials, contractors and others whose roles in the alleged misappropriation were documented in the forensic audit—although those names have not been released to the public at the time of this report.
As SERAP presses for enforcement, attention now turns to the Tinubu administration and the Attorney General’s office to determine whether they will take concrete steps to satisfy the court order or risk further legal confrontation. With a mounting public and civil society focus on this issue, continued delay could escalate tensions between the executive branch and proponents of judicial enforcement, and deepen the debate over transparency in public resource management.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews+
Add comment
Comments