The Rural Development, Information and Legal Advocacy Centre (RUDILAC) has called on the Attorney-General of the Federation to take a more active role in enforcing Nigeria’s transparency laws following renewed concerns arising from the United States Government’s 2026 Fiscal Transparency Report.
RUDILAC said the assessment has again brought attention to longstanding concerns over access to public financial information, government accountability and the effectiveness of Nigeria’s transparency framework.
The organisation, however, cautioned against interpreting the U.S. report as a corruption ranking, explaining that the assessment focuses on whether governments meet minimum fiscal-transparency requirements, including public access to budget information, revenues and expenditures, debt obligations, procurement processes and contracts involving natural resources.
Under the U.S. framework, countries are assessed annually on whether they have made significant progress towards meeting prescribed fiscal-transparency standards.
According to RUDILAC, Nigeria’s principal challenge is not the absence of laws requiring transparency but the widening gap between rights provided under those laws and their practical enforcement.
“Nigeria has a transparency law, but citizens are increasingly being forced to litigate to obtain information that should ordinarily be available within a functioning transparency system,” the organisation said.
RUDILAC placed the Attorney-General of the Federation at the centre of the debate, arguing that the nation’s chief law officer occupies a critical position at the intersection of legality, enforcement and public accountability.
It clarified that it was not suggesting that the AGF personally causes every refusal by a government institution to disclose information or should be held legally responsible for every instance of non-disclosure.
The organisation said its concern was institutional.
“Where the Federal Government has enacted laws requiring public institutions to disclose information, comply with legal obligations and respect citizens’ rights, the Attorney-General cannot reasonably treat systemic non-compliance as somebody else’s problem,” RUDILAC said.
It also expressed concern that in some transparency cases before the courts, the AGF has opposed applications seeking access to public records and sought the dismissal of proceedings on technical grounds.
RUDILAC said the situation raises a broader question about the enforcement architecture established by the Federal Government to ensure that transparency laws operate effectively.
The organisation pointed to its expanding public-interest litigation as evidence of the difficulties citizens and civil society organisations face in obtaining government records.
RUDILAC also referred to Registered Trustee of Unemployed Youths v. Code of Conduct Bureau & Anor, concerning access to asset and liability declaration forms of public officers.
RUDILAC also referred to Registered Trustee of Unemployed Youths v. Code of Conduct Bureau & Anor, concerning access to asset and liability declaration forms of public officers.
According to the organisation, the Federal High Court dismissed the action for lack of standing, while the Court of Appeal subsequently held that the forms could not be released without authorisation from the declarants.
It further cited RUDILAC v. HYPREP, involving requests for financial and contractual records connected with publicly funded Ogoniland environmental remediation projects. The Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt granted leave for judicial review in the matter.
Another case identified is RUDILAC & FOI Counsel v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, ECW/CCJ/APP/06/2026, challenging the alleged failure to publish the voters’ list online for easier verification and the imposition of what RUDILAC considers an excessive processing fee.
The organisation also listed President Aigbokhan v. Zacch Adedeji, Chairman, National Revenue Service, involving requests for procurement records relating to major infrastructure projects of the revenue agency, in which the Federal High Court granted leave for judicial review.
It further cited President Aigbokhan v. Khalil Suleiman Halilu & 2 Ors (NASENI), Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/957/2026, concerning records relating to the NASENI Statutory Fund, foreign investments, development financing, rural electrification, irrigation infrastructure, technology deployment and other major programmes between 2023 and 2026.