A recent engagement between representatives of host communities around the College of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Kaduna (CPESK) and the management of the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), which owns the institution, has sparked an important debate about transparency, public accountability, and the obligations of public institutions under Nigeria’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.
At the centre of the controversy is the response reportedly given by PTDF Executive Secretary Professor Shu’aibu Shehu Aliyu when community representatives sought clarification regarding reports that about 50 skilled personnel had been employed by the College without any apparent consideration for qualified candidates from the host communities.
While the meeting was intended to strengthen relations between PTDF and the communities hosting the new yet to be commissioned College, attention has shifted from the communities’ development requests to the Executive Secretary’s remarks on access to information.
The delegation, representing NDC Village, NDC GRA, Hayin Na’iya Village, Malalin Gabas GRA, and Malalin Gabas Village, visited PTDF headquarters, recently, in Abuja to seek a structured partnership with the college which was renamed to Shehu Musa Yar’adua Geological Sciences and Engineering Technology University by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu during his Democracy Day national address.
Their presentation focused on critical development challenges in the community hosting the university, including inadequate water supply, poor electricity infrastructure, limited healthcare facilities, educational deficiencies, and youth unemployment. One of their principal requests was the inclusion of qualified sons and daughters of the community in employment opportunities at the new university.
Speaking on behalf of the communities, Musa Bashir Usman, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of The Valuechain Energy Magazine, who is also a resident of the area, noted that community representatives had heard reports that the College had recently recruited approximately 50 skilled personnel. Rather than making a direct allegation, the delegation carefully qualified the statement by saying: “We have heard that about 50 skilled personnel were recently employed by the college, and regrettably, not a single person from our host communities was considered. If true, this undermines the purpose of siting a federal institution in a community.”
The wording is significant. The delegation neither asserted the information as fact nor accused the College of wrongdoing. Instead, it asked the PTDF leadership for clarification on claims circulating within the communities.
According to documented evidence from the meeting, Professor Aliyu reportedly cautioned the delegation against spreading rumours and false information concerning employment at the Institution.
When Musa Bashir Usman attempted to clarify that he was seeking confirmation rather than spreading misinformation, the conversation took a more controversial turn. The Executive Secretary stated that he was not bound to disclose such information and further remarked that: “Even the Minister cannot ask me such question.” That statement has become the focal point of public discussion.
The issue is no longer whether 50 people were employed. Rather, the issue is whether a public institution funded by the government can refuse to provide information about recruitment activities when citizens seek clarification.
Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act, 2011, was enacted precisely to address such situations. The Act gives every person the right to access information held by public institutions without having to demonstrate any special interest or reason.
Importantly, the law was designed to move Nigeria away from a culture of secrecy in public administration. The Act specifically provides that any person may request information held by a public institution; the requester does not need to justify why the information is sought, public institutions are required to respond within seven days, government agencies are encouraged to proactively disclose information relating to their operations, and wrongful denial of access may attract legal sanctions.
PTDF, as a federal government agency, falls squarely within the institutions covered by the Act. The recruitment of staff into a publicly funded institution would ordinarily constitute administrative information subject to disclosure unless it falls within one of the specific exemptions recognised by law. The exemptions contained in the FOI Act generally relate to national security, defence matters, ongoing investigations, personal privacy, commercial secrets, and certain privileged communications. Employment figures and recruitment processes generally do not fall under these categories.
While personal details of individual applicants may be protected for privacy reasons, aggregate information such as the number of employees recruited, recruitment procedures used, advertisements issued, and selection criteria applied would ordinarily be considered public information. Indeed, transparency in recruitment is often regarded as a key safeguard against favouritism, patronage, and abuse of office. This is one reason why many federal agencies routinely publish recruitment exercises and employment statistics. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the reported exchange was the statement that “even the Minister cannot ask me such a question”. In administrative practice, such a statement raises important governance concerns.
PTDF operates under the supervision of the Federal Government and within a framework of public accountability. While the Executive Secretary enjoys statutory authority in managing the institution, public institutions are ultimately accountable to oversight bodies, including supervising ministries, the National Assembly, anti-corruption agencies, auditors, and the Nigerian public. The FOI Act itself does not restrict access to information based on rank or status. The law empowers ordinary citizens, journalists, civil society organisations, and communities to seek information. Therefore, whether a minister can ask such a question is not the legal issue.
The more relevant question is whether citizens have a right to request such information. The answer under the FOI Act is generally yes. Musa Bashir Usman, a key energy sector stakeholder, expressed disappointment to our Correspondent regarding the Executive Secretary’s conduct. He reiterated his unwavering respect for PTDF, an institution that he highly respects. Bashir also called for a review of the PTDF leadership appointment process, arguing against bypassing internal homegrown professionals for external appointees.
Meanwhile, efforts to get reactions from the PTDF Executive Secretary, Professor Shu’aibu Shehu Aliyu, on the aforementioned issue were not successful as messages sent to the PTDF media team were not responded to.
Overall, host communities often view major federal institutions as catalysts for local development. Across Nigeria, universities, oil facilities, power projects, and industrial estates are expected to create economic opportunities for surrounding populations. The communities hosting the Shehu Musa Yar’adua University appear to have approached PTDF from this perspective. Their requests covered employment, scholarships, internships, educational support, healthcare improvements, boreholes, transformers, and market opportunities. Such requests are not unusual. In fact, many institutions maintain dedicated community relations departments to manage similar expectations.
Against this backdrop, the inquiry regarding employment opportunities was not merely about jobs. It was about whether the host communities are being integrated into the economic ecosystem created by the institution. Whether or not the reported recruitment exercise occurred, public perception now centres on the Executive Secretary’s reaction. Leadership communication often shapes public confidence as much as policy outcomes.
A response that is perceived as dismissive of legitimate questions can generate unnecessary controversy, even where the institution has acted appropriately. Many governance experts argue that transparency serves as a protective mechanism for public institutions. Had the recruitment information been openly clarified, the issue might have ended at the meeting itself. Instead, the reported refusal to discuss the matter has created fresh questions about openness and accountability. The incident highlights a broader challenge facing public institutions in Nigeria. More than a decade after the enactment of the FOI Act, implementation remains uneven.
Several government agencies have embraced proactive disclosure and transparency practices. Others continue to operate with a culture of secrecy inherited from the pre-FOI era. Civil society organisations have repeatedly argued that the true test of the FOI Act is not the existence of the law but the willingness of public officials to comply with its spirit. The PTDF episode illustrates this tension. On one side are citizens seeking information about a public institution. On the other is a public official reportedly asserts that he is under no obligation to provide that information. The controversy presents PTDF with an opportunity rather than a crisis.
The agency could easily resolve the matter by publicly clarifying whether any recent recruitment exercise occurred, the number of personnel employed, the recruitment process adopted, whether host community applicants participated, and future opportunities for qualified local candidates. Such disclosure would align with the principles of the FOI Act and strengthen trust between the institution and its host communities.
For the communities, the issue underscores the importance of formally invoking the FOI Act where information is required. The law provides a clear mechanism for requesting records and, where necessary, seeking judicial review if access is denied. The dispute arising from the CPESK host community meeting is about more than employment figures. It has become a test case for transparency, accountability, and respect for citizens’ rights under Nigeria’s Freedom of Information regime.
The statement that employment information need not be disclosed and that even a minister could not seek such information appears inconsistent with the spirit of the FOI Act and modern principles of public governance. As Nigeria champions public administration transparency, citizens will increasingly expect government agencies to treat information not as institutional property but as a public trust. Transparency, therefore, is not just a legal duty but a sacrosanct element of democratic leadership.
