The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered the former Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, and the ministry of information to disclose the details of the agreement between the Federal Government and X, formerly Twitter.
Ruling in a case filed before the court by the Socio-Economic Rights And Accountability Project, SERAP, Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, said the disclosure would enable the court to assess whether the agreement complies with the exercise of Nigerians’ human rights online.
Justice Dimgba said: “Disclosing the details of the agreement between the Nigerian Government and Twitter is in the public interest and does not affect Twitter’s business interest as a third party.
“It is also not prejudicial to Nigeria’s sovereignty and national security. The agreement between the Nigerian Government and Twitter must still be disclosed irrespective of the harm to Twitter if it would be in the public interest to make sure disclosure.”
Justice Dimgba dismissed the objections raised by the minister’s counsel and upheld SERAP’s arguments. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favour of SERAP against the minister.
“The minister has failed to prove that the President has followed due process of law to designate Twitter as a Critical National Information Infrastructure upon the National Security Adviser’s recommendation and issued an Order in the Federal Gazette in that regard.”
Justice Dimgba’s judgment, dated 28 May, 2024, read in part: “Therefore, I hold that the disclosure of the Twitter agreement is not prejudicial to Nigeria’s sovereignty and national security or protected by the Official Secrets Act, as the minister has failed to prove the same.
“The first question that needs to be answered is how the need to disclose the agreement is outweighed by the importance of protecting the commercial interests of the third party, Twitter.
“The former minister has unequivocally argued that the disclosure could harm Twitter’s business interests in other jurisdictions, potentially with Twitter’s contractual negotiations.
“However, this defence is hypothetical and does not point to the specific business or contractual interests of Twitter that could be affected.”
