reader poll
As a PREMIUM TIMES reader, your opinion matters. please take our survey to help us better understand our readers’ values and preferences. Your feedback will give us valuable information about how we can tailor the different types of content we offer to meet your needs. He survey It should only take 6-8 minutes to complete.
Click here to take it.
The Abuja Federal High Court on Thursday rejected a request for an order to postpone the 2023 Census scheduled to take place from May 3-5.
The judge, Inyang Ekwo, refused to grant the request, instead asking the plaintiff, Omotuyi Ademola, to put the defendant, the National Population Commission (NPC)alert.
Mr. Ekwo acknowledged that the applicant’s attorney filed a motion for an interim injunction to postpone the conduct of the 2023 Census.
“However, in considering the motion, I am of the opinion that the defendants should be notified,” the judge said.
Therefore, it ordered the petitioner’s attorney, Victor Opatola, to notify the NPC so that the commission can appear in court and show cause why the petitioner’s motion should not be granted.
He adjourned the matter until May 5, for the defendant to file a case.
Suit
Mr. Omotuyi, in his ex parte application, asked the court for an order to postpone the next census for six months.
This, he said, was to ensure adequate preparation, publicity, and adequate funding for the commission.
Furthermore, it requested a statement that the APN currently lacked effective preparation and adequate publicity for conducting a credible, effective, and constitutional census in the country.
ALSO READ: Less than a month to census, Nigeria calls for financial support
He requested a statement that the commission was currently underfunded and therefore not prepared to conduct a credible, effective, and constitutional census.
The applicant also requested any additional orders that the court deems fit and appropriate to make in the circumstances of the case.
Legal issues
Mr. Omotuyi had raised two issues for the court to determine.
“Whether by a true interpretation and construction of the 1999 Constitution and Section 6 of the National Population Commission Law, the objective, intent, importance and purpose of the 2023 Census will not be defeated by lack of preparation. adequate, lack of adequate awareness and publicity and shortage of funds.
“If the above is affirmative, it will not lead to an exacerbated underreporting and inefficiency of the purpose of the census.”
In a related motion, the court granted a request for permission to seek judicial review of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request made to the NPC.
A lawyer, Rhoda Aransiola, who filed the request on behalf of her client, Victor Opatola, said the request was made necessary when the commission refused to grant her client’s request under the FOI Act.
Mr. Ekwo asked Ms. Aransiola to apply within seven days.
He adjourned the matter until May 25 for the hearing.
In the application, Mr. Opatola asks the court for an order granting him permission to seek a writ of mandamus compelling the NPC to provide him with information about the upcoming 2023 General Census.
“Complete and detailed information on the Quality Test Guarantee report on the devices and technology that the commission will implement for the next general Census of 2023 until the Judgment is issued in this case within 7 days after delivery of the sentence.
“An order granting the petitioner permission to apply for a writ of mandamus that obliges the respondent to provide full and detailed information about any conflict of interest in the assignment of contracts or work awarded by or to contractors for the upcoming 2023 General Census until judgment In this case, it is issued within 7 days following the issuance of the sentence.”
Petitioner is also seeking an order allowing him or her to seek a writ of mandamus requiring Respondent to provide full and detailed information about funds received to date by the Commission for the 2023 Census.
In addition, he requested from the court a declaration that the defendant’s refusal to disclose the requested information or record amounted to a violation of Section 7(1) and 4(a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act and the action was illegal and unconstitutional.
(YAYA)