By Rita Enemuru, Reporting
Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has condemned the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for demanding over N1.5 billion for a copy of the National Register of Voters and the list of polling units in Nigeria.
The Executive Director of MRA, Mr. Edetaen Ojo, in a statement made available to Stonix News on Thursday, described the act as a blatant attempt to weaponise cost as a tool for denying access to vital public information.
In the statement, Mr Ojo noted that the National Register of Voters and the list of polling units are among the most important public records required by civil society organisations, the media, and other bodies to effectively monitor the electoral process.
According to him, attempting to frustrate a legitimate Freedom of Information (FOI) request by demanding such a fee was a clear violation of the spirit and letter of the FOI Act.
He stated that MRA’s statement followed a letter from INEC, dated October 13, 2025, and signed by Ms Rose Oriaran-Anthony, Secretary to the Commission, in response to an October 8, 2025 request filed by the law firm of V-C Ottackpukpu & Associates, in which it demanded the payment of N1,505,901,750.00 as cost of producing the Voters Register and list of all polling units in Nigeria as a condition for releasing the information.
“Section 8(1) of the FOI Act clearly stipulates that fees shall be limited to standard charges for document duplication and transcription, where necessary. The staggering amount of over N1.5 billion cannot be a standard charge for duplication and is a clear and deliberate attempt to make public data inaccessible to the public. This is an affront to transparency and democratic accountability.”
“In the exercise of his powers under the FOI Act, former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN) issued Guidelines for public institutions on the Implementation of the Act, in which he stipulated the fees chargeable for duplication of records under the Act, limiting photocopy or scanning and printing to a maximum of N10 per page.
“The list of 93,469,008 registered voters and list of 176,846 polling units in the country could not number up to 150 million pages, for the cost of duplicating those lists to amount to over N1.5 billion at the legally permissible rate of fees.
“Besides, In November 2017, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted the Guidelines on Access to Information and Elections in Africa, as a soft law instrument to provide guidance to States on the categories of information on the electoral process that must, at the minimum, be proactively disclosed.
“Paragraph 17(e) of the Guidelines requires any election management body in Africa, during pre-election periods, to proactively disclose “Voters roll containing information allowing the unique identification of each voter, including the full name, identity number, photograph (where it exists), gender and age of each voter, and any subsequent amendments to this information,” he stated.
Mr Ojo further stressed that the requested documents, the National Register of Voters and the list of polling units, are public records that are fundamental to electoral transparency and are likely already digitized and centrally stored, which means that the cost of reproducing such electronic data is negligible and would certainly not be in millions of Naira.
He warned even on a charitable interpretation of INEC’s action, with its mandate to conduct free, fair, and credible elections, which hinges on public trust and transparency, the response of the Commission sends a strong signal that it is prioritizing bureaucracy and profit over its constitutional and statutory obligations to the Nigerian people, or that it is deliberately impeding public scrutiny of its operations.
He therefore called on INEC to immediately and unconditionally withdraw the outrageous fee demand and provide the requested information either completely free of charge, in accordance with the principle established by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, or at a fee that strictly adheres to the provision of Section 8(1) of the FOI Act and the Attorney-General’s FOI Implementation Guidelines.
What's your reaction?
