MRA faults INEC’s ₦1.5bn voters register fee, says it undermines transparency

The Media Rights Agenda (MRA) has condemned the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) for demanding over ₦1.5 billion as the cost of providing a copy of the national register of voters and the list of polling units across the country, describing the demand as an attempt to frustrate a legitimate Freedom of Information (FOI) request and undermine transparency.

In a statement issued on Thursday in Lagos, Edetaen Ojo, executive director, MRA said INEC’s action amounts to “weaponising cost to deny public access to vital electoral information,” stressing that the register and polling unit data are essential tools for civil society, political parties, election observers, and the media to monitor electoral processes.

The controversy followed a letter from INEC dated October 13, 2025, and signed by its Secretary, Rose Oriaran-Anthony, in response to an FOI request submitted by V.C. Ottackpukpu & Associates on October 8, 2025. INEC reportedly demanded ₦1,505,901,750 as the cost of processing and releasing the requested documents.

Ojo faulted the charge as “excessive, prohibitive and unlawful,” insisting that Section 8(1) of the FOI Act restricts fees to “standard charges for document duplication and transcription.” He argued that the ₦1.5 billion cost cannot be justified as a duplication fee, calling it a deliberate attempt to make public data inaccessible.

He recalled that the Attorney-General’s FOI Implementation Guidelines, issued by former AGF, Mohammed Adoke (SAN), limit photocopying or printing charges to a maximum of ₦10 per page. “The list of 93.4 million registered voters and 176,846 polling units could not reasonably amount to over ₦1.5 billion at the legally permissible rate,” he said.

Ojo also cited the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Guidelines on Access to Information and Elections in Africa, which obligate election management bodies to proactively disclose voters’ rolls and related data.

He maintained that such information is already digitised and centrally stored by INEC, making the actual cost of reproduction negligible. According to him, INEC’s response “sends a wrong signal that the Commission prioritizes bureaucracy over transparency and accountability.”

Warning that the move sets a “dangerous precedent,” Ojo said it could embolden other government agencies to impose prohibitive charges that defeat the purpose of the FOI Act.

MRA therefore urged INEC to immediately withdraw the fee and release the requested information either free of charge or in accordance with the legally approved FOI fee structure, emphasising that access to public records is fundamental to democratic transparency.