The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID) have filed a lawsuit against President Muhammadu Buhari, requesting that the court declare the N5 million fines imposed on Trust TV, MultiChoice Nigeria Limited, NTA-Startimes Limited, and TelCom Satellite Limited arbitrary and illegal.
Mr. Lai Mohammed, Minister of Information and Culture, and the National Broadcasting Commission are also named as defendants in the claim (NBC).
Remember that the NBC fined the media houses last week, stating that their documentaries glorified the acts of bandits, undermined national security, and violated the requirements of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.
SERAP and CJID are seeking “an order setting aside the arbitrary and illegal fines of N5 million and any other penal sanction unilaterally imposed by the NBC on these media houses simply for carrying out their constitutional duties” in the suit number FHC/L/ CS/1486/2022 filed last Friday at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
“The NBC and Mr. Lai Mohammed have not demonstrated that the films by the media houses would impose a specific risk of harm to a legitimate state interest that surpasses the public interest in the information given by the documentaries,” the plaintiffs claim.
According to the plaintiffs, “the documentaries produced by these independent media outlets represent no threat to any concrete interest in national security or public order.”
“It is incongruous and incompatible with the Nigerian constitution 1999 (as amended) to claim the grounds of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ as justifications for restricting access to lawful public interest material that does not endanger national security.”
“The independent media houses’ documentaries are in the public interest, and punishing the media houses just for raising public awareness about these issues would have a disproportionate and chilling effect on their work, as well as the work of other journalists and Nigerians.”
“The NBC’s and Mr. Lai Mohammed’s action is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional since it violates Section 39 of the Nigerian constitution and international human rights treaties, notably the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has ratified.”
According to the action filed on their behalf by their lawyers, Kolawole Oluwadare and Ms. Adelanke Aremo, “a fine is a criminal sentence and only the court is empowered by the constitution to impose it.”
Fines imposed by regulatory bodies such as the NBC without access to the courts are unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional.
“The grounds of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ used to penalise media outlets are completely antithetical to constitutional and international standards on free expression and access to information.”
“Imposing any fine without due process of law is arbitrary, as it violates the principles of nemo judex in causa sua, which literally means one cannot be a judge in one’s own cause, and audi alteram partem, which means no one should be sentenced without being heard.” Article 19 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes the right to free expression.
Article 19(2) defines Nigeria’s responsibility to uphold ‘the right to free expression,’ which includes the ability to seek, receive, and impart information across borders.
“According to article 19(3), restrictions on the right to free expression must be ‘given by law’ and necessary ‘for the respect of the rights or reputations of others’ or ‘for the protection of national security, public order (ordre public), or public health and morals.” Although article 19(3) recognizes “national security” as a legitimate goal, the Human Rights Council, the body in charge of monitoring the Covenant’s implementation, has emphasized “the need to ensure that the invocation of national security is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
“The legality, need, and proportionality conditions for fining these independent media outlets are not met.”
“The requirement of necessity also entails an assessment of the proportionality of the grounds, with the goal of ensuring that the excuses of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ and ‘national security’ are not used as a pretext to unduly infringe on the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.” However, no date has been set for the suit’s hearing.
