The Right to Access Information Commission (RAIC) has handed its ruling on a right to information matter between one Muctar Dukuray and the National Investment Board (NIB).
It could be recalled that, pursuant to section 2(1) of the Right to Access Information Act 2013, Mr. Dukuray on 13th February 2026, requested the National Investment Board to conduct an information search against his personal identity to verify if he is listed as a director, shareholder, subscriber or secretary of any entity registered under the Companies Act 2009.
The requester also asked that a search be conducted against the personal identity of his deceased sister Haja Hawa Dukuray to verify if the deceased is listed as a director, shareholder, subscriber or secretary of any entity registered under the Companies Act 2009.
In a letter dated 24th February 2026, Mr. Dukuray made a complaint to the Right to Access Information Commission alleging that the National Investment Board failed to allow him to pay the requisite fees in respect of the searches abovementioned. In exercise of the power conferred on it pursuant to Section 45(1) of the Right to Access Information Act 2013, by a letter dated, the Right to Access Information Commission wrote a letter to NIB on 25th February 2026, giving them 7 days to reply to the said complaint.
The National Investment Board replied to the letter from the RAIC stating that their mandate is to regulate companies and that searches are done in respect of registered companies and business entities, and not names of individuals.
Dissatisfied with the response of the NIB, the requester, Mr. Dukuray, submitted to the RAIC an Application for Review on the 11th March 2026 for the Commission to make a determination on the matter.
To fairly adjudicate on the matter, and in line with the RAI law and best practice, the Right to Access Information Commission summoned the parties to a mediation on 11th May 2026 and at the meeting, the Representative of the National Investment Board submitted that NIB’s system is not set up to do searches on individual names, adding that searches can only be done as against company names.
The NIB representative further submitted that only by providing a company name can access be provided to the contents of a company registered with the National Investment Board and the names of directors, shareholders, subscribers or secretary to the company.
The representative of the respondent (National Investment Board) said the search engine is an index which takes the searcher to the actual file which would be reproduced for the requester of the information and that only after a request for a company’s information is made that access is granted to the contents of the said company.
The respondent noted that the request made did not disclose a company, noting that the NIB has companies registered as far back as even the 1930s and it was impossible to manually search all the companies registered to see whether or not the requester’s name or his deceased sister’s name is in any of the companies registered.
The respondent also mentioned that the requester was therefore informed to provide a company name for him to be provided with the information and thereafter he would pay for the search. The respondent (NIB) explained that the requester (Mr. Dukuray) further reiterated that he had no company name to give nor did he have any physical proof to provide that he was in fact a shareholder or director of any company and on the basis of this, the National Investment Board could not provide the information requested.
In its order, the Right to Access Information Commission ruled that, having considered the correspondences and submissions of both parties, “the Respondent herein succeeded in proving to the Right to Access Information Commission that it did not violate the Right to Access Information Act 2013.”
The Commission justified its ruling on two reasons:
“1. That in the absence of further information from the Requester to enable the Respondent to do the search it is impracticable for the Respondent to manually search all companies registered.
2. Further in the Requesters submissions there is doubt as to whether or not the Requester is a shareholder or director of any company.”
It is against this backdrop, and pursuant to section 45(b) and 48 of the Right to Access Information Act 2013, that the Application for Review submitted by Mr Dukuray is dismissed.
According to the ruling and pursuant to Sections 45 and 46 of the Right to Access Information Act 2013, Mr. Muctar Dukuray (complainant/requester) has the right to appeal the ruling or decision of the Right to Access Information Commission to the High Court within 45 (Forty-Five) days.
The Order issued on 12th June 2026 was signed by RAIC’s chairman and information commissioner, Dr Ibrahim Seaga Shaw; western region commissioner, Pst. Mohamed Sesay; southern region commissioner, Biah Yormah Idriss; eastern region commissioner, Ahmed G. Kallon; and northern region commissioner, Abubakarr Kargbo.
For more information, contact;
Amara Thoronka
Public Information and Communications Officer
RAIC’s National Secretariat
thoronkaa2021@gmail.com
amara.thoronka@raic.gov.sl
+232 88 283632 / +232 78 231949
