provisions of the 6th Edition of the Broadcasting Code<\/a>, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed simultaneously in this suit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn the suit, SERAP and NGE are arguing that: \u201cUnless the reliefs sought are granted, the NBC will continue to use the provisions of the 6th Edition of the Broadcasting Code to threaten and sanction broadcast stations and presenters solely for carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and exercising their rights.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
SERAP and NGE are also arguing that, \u201cThe Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law protect both the absolute right to hold opinions and the qualified right to express ideas of all kinds. Journalistic opinion is protected expression.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Human rights lawyer, Mr Femi Falana (SAN) would lead a team of senior lawyers to represent SERAP and NGE in the lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The originating summons, motion exparte, motion on notice and affidavit of urgency filed in court, read in part: \u201cValue judgments are not susceptible of proof and enjoy heightened protection. Journalism necessarily includes analysis and commentary.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe right to impart ideas necessarily includes opinions, commentary, and analysis. A blanket prohibition on the expression of \u2018personal opinions by anchors and presenters\u2019 amounts to an impermissible restriction to this right.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cJournalists are entitled to express their opinions as a matter of professional standard, including commentary and analytical expression, which lie at the very core of journalistic practice and democratic discourse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law, and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void. The Nigeria Broadcasting Code, as subsidiary legislation, cannot override constitutional rights or exceed its enabling Act. Provisions that are vague and overly broad unlawfully restrict freedom of expression and must be struck down.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cUnder Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform international treaties, including the human rights treaties to which Nigeria is a state party.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Nigeria Broadcasting Code, as subsidiary legislation, is subject to the Nigerian Constitution and cannot override fundamental rights. Its vague and overly broad provisions grant excessive discretion and undermine freedom of expression. Such impermissible restrictions are unconstitutional and should be struck down.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe NBC\u2019s claim of a \u2018crisis of anchor and presenter professionalism\u2019 as justification for restrictive measures is legally insufficient and cannot be a permissible ground of derogation from freedom of expression. Any limitation on the rights must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe blanket prohibition imposed by Section 1.10.3 of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code, which prohibits presenters from expressing opinions. This amounts to prior restraint that impermissibly excludes commentary, analysis, and value judgments\u2014the core of journalism and democratic discourse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSection 1.10.3 amounts to a form of prior censorship or restraint. Such a blanket restriction fails the legal tests of legality, necessity and proportionality required in a democratic society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe NBC\u2019s reliance on multiple vague provisions of the Broadcasting Code to classify a wide range of presenter conduct as \u2018Class B breaches\u2019 attracting sanctions is contrary to the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSection 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples\u2019 Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party guarantee the right to \u2018receive and impart ideas and information without interference.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cUnder the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law, restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. The NBC\u2019s reliance on an undefined and subjective standard of \u2018professionalism\u2019 introduces vagueness and opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhile the prohibition of misuse of broadcast platforms by political actors is a legitimate concern, it does not justify sweeping or repressive regulatory measures that infringe on fundamental human rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAddressing any alleged misuse must be grounded in lawful, precise, necessary, and proportionate responses that respect freedom of expression and editorial independence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAhead of the 2027 general elections, the NBC\u2019s Formal Notice undermines Nigerians\u2019 democratic rights to receive diverse information, hear competing political viewpoints, and engage in open debate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cRather than curbing misuse, such measures risk entrenching self-censorship, limiting scrutiny of political actors, and weakening the media\u2019s essential role in ensuring transparent, accountable, and credible elections.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhile certain aims such as preventing harassment or ensuring fairness in broadcasting may be legitimate, the provisions as invoked by the NBC are vague, overbroad, and susceptible to arbitrary interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe threat of sanctions for broadly defined conduct creates a chilling effect on journalists and broadcasters, thereby undermining constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe provisions of the Broadcasting Code are not formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals regulate their conduct. The imposition of administrative sanctions without adequate procedural safeguards raises fair hearing concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe NBC\u2019s enforcement posture transforms regulatory oversight into a regime of indirect censorship. While the regulation of misinformation may constitute a legitimate aim, the prohibition on presenters expressing \u2018personal opinion as fact\u2019 is framed in vague and overly broad terms that fail the requirement of legal certainty.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe absence of clear definitions distinguishing fact from opinion renders the provision prone to arbitrary application, thereby creating a chilling effect on legitimate journalistic expression and debate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAlthough the prevention of harassment in broadcasting is a legitimate regulatory objective, the provisions of the NBC\u2019s notice prohibiting \u2018bullying or intimidation\u2019 lack clear and objective criteria, and fail the requirement of precision and foreseeability.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe undefined scope of \u2018bullying\u2019 or \u2018intimidation\u2019 risks capturing critical or adversarial questioning, which is an essential feature of investigative journalism and democratic discourse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe notice would also seriously undermine the media\u2019s constitutional role as a public watchdog because any regulation that discourages rigorous questioning undermines this function.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe requirement that broadcasters must always provide \u2018fair hearing to opposing views, while ostensibly grounded in principles of balance, imposes an impermissible form of compelled speech and editorial control.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cApart from explicitly undermining editorial independence, such a requirement also suppresses legitimate expression, and disregards the autonomy of journalists and media houses. The requirement may also unduly burden or distort programming, particularly in formats such as commentary or opinion-based shows.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe classification of the alleged conduct as a \u2018Class B breach\u2019 attracting sanctions, including fines or suspension, constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and raises serious due process and fair hearing concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law provide that individuals and entities are entitled to fair hearing before the imposition of penalties. Similarly, sanctions affecting expression must be strictly necessary and proportionate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe imposition of punitive measures based on vague and broadly defined infractions creates a chilling effect on broadcasters, discouraging legitimate journalistic activity and undermining democratic discourse. Such a regime of sanctions also amounts to indirect or prior censorship.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
SERAP and NGE are therefore asking the court for the following reliefs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. <\/strong>A DECLARATION<\/em><\/strong> that Sections 1.10.3, 3.3.1(b), 3.4.1(b), 5.3.3(b), 3.1.1, 3.11.1(a), 5.4.1(f), 3.11.1(b), and 5.5.1(b) of the 6th<\/sup> Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code, by reason of their vagueness and imprecision, constitute a breach of the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information as guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution and the country\u2019s international human rights obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n2. <\/strong>A DECLARATION<\/em><\/strong> <\/strong>that Sections 1.10.3, 3.3.1(b), 3.4.1(b), 5.3.3(b), 3.1.1, 3.11.1(a), 5.4.1(f), 3.11.1(b), and 5.5.1(b) of the 6th<\/sup> Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code are overbroad, vague and fail to provide citizens and broadcasting stations with sufficient notice of what constitutes a breach, and are consequently unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n3. <\/strong>AN ORDER<\/em><\/strong> of the Court nullifying and setting aside Sections 1.10.3, 3.3.1(b), 3.4.1(b), 5.3.3(b), 3.1.1, 3.11.1(a), 5.4.1(f), 3.11.1(b), and 5.5.1(b) of the 6th<\/sup> Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code<\/a> for being inconsistent with, and amounting to a fundamental breach of the rights to freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information as guaranteed under the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples\u2019 Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n4. <\/strong>AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION<\/em><\/strong> restraining the NBC, whether jointly or severally or any other authority, person or group of persons from enforcing, imposing sanctions, or levying fines on broadcast stations and presenters based on the provisions of Sections 1.10.3, 3.3.1(b), 3.4.1(b), 5.3.3(b), 3.1.1, 3.11.1(a), 5.4.1(f), 3.11.1(b), and 5.5.1(b) of the 6th<\/sup> Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNo date has been fixed for the hearing of the interim application and the substantive suit. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nKolawole Oluwadare<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nSERAP Deputy Director <\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) have filed a lawsuit against the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) over \u201cthe arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unlawful \u2018Formal Notice\u2019, which threatens to sanction broadcast stations and presenters for allegedly \u2018expressing personal opinions as facts, bullying or intimidating guests, or failing to maintain neutrality.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3345,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/modusoperandum.ng\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/SERAP-1.jpg?fit=727%2C465&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16046"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16049,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16046\/revisions\/16049"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/modusoperandum.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}