The Socio‑Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) have filed a lawsuit in the Federal High Court, Lagos (case no. FHC/L/CS/616/2023), seeking to declare the ₦5 million fine imposed on Channels Television arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The fine was levied by the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) after an interview with Labour Party vice‑presidential candidate Datti Baba‑Ahmed, which NBC claimed violated its broadcasting code. The plaintiffs also name the NBC and Minister of Information and Culture Lai Mohammed as defendants.
In their petition, the plaintiffs ask the court to determine whether the NBC code used to impose the fine—and the threat of higher sanctions—is inconsistent with the right to access information and media freedom. They seek a declaration that the code is arbitrary, unconstitutional and unlawful because it infringes on the rights to a fair hearing, freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom. Accordingly, they request that the court set aside the ₦5 million fine as inconsistent with sections 22, 36 and 39 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended), Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They also ask that the NBC be ordered to reverse the fine immediately.
The plaintiffs argue that the media’s role is to disseminate a variety of information and opinions on matters of public interest. Imposing a fine without due process, they contend, violates the principles of *nemo judex in causa sua* (no one may be a judge in their own cause) and *audi alteram partem* (no one should be condemned unheard). They emphasize that the media is essential for exercising freedom of expression and accessing information in a democratic society, and that the NBC Act and Broadcasting Code must not be applied in ways that undermine plurality, diversity, non‑discrimination, or the public interest.
According to the plaintiffs’ counsel—Kolawole Oluwadare, Andrew Nwankwo and Blessing Ogwuche—the fine fails to meet the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality. They assert that broadcasting is a means of exercising freedom of expression, and any restrictions must satisfy those three criteria. The regulation of broadcasting should expand, not restrict, this right, guided by the Nigerian Constitution and international human‑rights treaties to which Nigeria is a party.
Citing Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the plaintiffs note that freedom of opinion and expression includes the right to seek, receive and impart information without interference. Restrictions must be provided by law and be necessary for the protection of others’ rights, national security, public order, health or morals. While national security is a legitimate aim, the Human Rights Committee warns against its arbitrary use to curb media freedom. The plaintiffs argue that applying the NBC Act and Code in this case would open the door to arbitrariness and fundamentally restrict expression protected by both domestic and international law.
They warn that arbitrary fines on media houses for performing their constitutional duties would undermine Nigerians’ rights to express themselves and to receive diverse information. Freedom of expression entails both the public’s right to receive information and the media’s right to impart a wide range of ideas. A free, independent and pluralistic media is essential for democratic deliberation, participation and the exercise of other human rights. While recognizing NBC’s mandate to regulate broadcasting, the plaintiffs maintain that any enforcement, including fines, must adhere to the thresholds and guidelines set by the right to freedom of expression and media freedom.
No hearing date has been fixed for the suit.
Comments are closed for this story.