By Brave Dickson
The hearing of a suit bordering on gross violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 brought against the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital by Mr Mark Lenu was stalled following the death of Chief Akuro George whose law firm is representing the hospital in the suit.
When the suit came up for hearing, a lawyer from Chief Akuro’s law firm, Barr Nemi Trema informed the court via a letter, their intention to seek further adjournment which counsel to the plaintiff, Barr Kingdom Chukwuezie did not oppose to since the reason borders of death.
Briefing our correspondent, Barr Chukwuezie said “for the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital, its lawyer wrote a letter informing the court that because of the death of their Principal, Chief Akuro George which had made them be fully engaged in his burial processes, they prayed the court to adjourn the suit to another date to enable them to come to court to present their own part of the matter.
“We did not oppose their application since it borders on the death of an individual. Therefore, the court adjourned the suit to October 7, 2019, for hearing.”
Similarly, a sister suit but against the University of Port Harcourt which was billed for hearing too was further adjourned to October 3, 2019, following the inability of the defendant (the school) to file and serve proper counter affidavit on the plaintiff (Mark Lenu).
Barr Chukwuezie told TPCN that the matter was actually slated for hearing but was stalled when the court found out that the University of Port Harcourt has not properly filed its counter affidavit to the originating summons.
He said: “The court ordered the school to file correctly and serve on us while it adjourned the suit to October 3, 2019, for a hearing of the substantive suit.”
It would be recalled that the plaintiff (Mark Lenu) had earlier this year requested certain information from the defendants (UNIPORT and UPTH) through written applications in line with Section One of the FOI Act 2011 but was denied of such information by the defendants who did not explain to the plaintiff their reasons for refusal.
For UNIPORT, the plaintiff (Mark Lenu) had requested the defendant to make available to him, “the total sum received from regular students, postgraduate students and pre-degree students as tuition fees for the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 academic sessions.
“The unspent amount remitted to the Federal Government from the allocations received by the school for the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 sessions.
“And the actual amount paid in salaries and allowances to teaching and non-teaching staff of the school in 2017 and 2018,” among others.
Concerning UPTH, the plaintiff had requested the public institution to furnish him with the “allocations received from the Federal Government for salaries and allowances of staff for 2017 and 2018.
“And unspent amount remitted to the Federal Government from the allocation received by the hospital from the Federal Government for 2017 and 2018,” among others.
Upon refusal by the defendants to make available the information requested by the plaintiff as contained in his written applications, Mr Lenu in line with Section Four of the FOI Act 2011 dragged the public institutions to court over their failure to comply with the FOI Act 2011.
Mr Lenu in his originating summons is praying the court to determine whether he is entitled to receive the information he requested from the public institutions in pursuance to Section One of the FoI Act 2011
And that whether the failure or refusal of the public institutions to furnish him with the information he requested for was not a violation of his right as guaranteed by Section 4 (a) of the FOI Act 2011.
The plaintiff, therefore, sought the following reliefs before the court:
“A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the information he applied for from the defendants (public institutions).
“A declaration that the failure and or refusal of the defendants to give written notice to the plaintiff stating the reason for the denial of the information sought and requested by Exhibit ‘A’ is wrongful, unlawful and constitute a gross violation of section 4 (b) of the FOI Act 2011.
“An order of this Honourable Court on the defendants to make available to the plaintiff a hard copy of the information requested per Exhibit ‘A’ within seven days of the judgment of the court.
“And the sum of one million naira only as exemplary and aggravated damages for the unlawful violation of the plaintiff’s right of access to information established and guaranteed by section 1 (1) and 4 of the FOI Act 2011,” among others.
