Nigerian Press Council Act Violates rights of free speech — Court

The Plaintiffs in this suit are suing both in their personal capacities and representation of other members of the Newspapers Properties Association of Nigeria.

In supporting the Originating Summons they describe the association to which they subscribe as members “comprising of proprietors of Newspapers, News Magazine and other Journals of Mass media published in Nigeria for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions in pursuance of the provision of Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

Also the 1stt – 6th Plaintiffs are proprietors of the “Democrat Newspapers, Vanguard Newspapers, News watch Magazine, Punch Newspapers, This day Newspapers and Comment Newspaper respectively.

The Plaintiffs are challenging the constitutionality of the Nigeria Press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 which was amended by Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1991 and have therefore formulated the following questions for determinations:-A. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 4(2) (4) (a) and (b) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Nigeria is not limited to: (i) Matters included in the Exclusive Legislating fist set oof in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution.

(ii) Matters included in the concurrent legislative list set out in the first column of Part 11 of the Second Schedule to the constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto and (iii) Other makers with respect to which it is expressly expound by the constitution to make laws.

Whether the NIGERIA PRESS COUNCIL DECREE NO. 85 OF 1999 and the NIGERIA COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) DECREE NO. 60 OF 1999 both of which purport to legislate on the press are not inconsistent with Section 4(2) (4) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution in so far as the press “is not one of the matters with the legislative competence of the National Assembly as set out in paragraph l(i) (ii) and (iii) above.

Whereof the Plaintiff claim the following reliefs:- 1. A Declaration that “the Press” is not one of the matters with respect to which the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is empowered to make laws as contained in Section 4(2), (4) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria 1999.

2. A Declaration that in so far as the Nigerian Press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 and the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1999 purport to legislate on “the Press” the said Decrees are inconsistent with Section 4(2) (4) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution and therefore are unconstitutional null and void.

3. A Perpetual Injunction restraining the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria from treating or continuing to treat the Nigerian Press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 and the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1999 as existing laws deemed to be Acts of the National Assembly.

4. A Perpetual Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants whether by themselves their servants, agents and or representatives from implementing or otherwise giving effect in any manner whatsoever to the provisions of the said Nigerian Press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 and the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1999.
ALTERNATIVE RELIEFS

5. A Declaration that such of the provisions of the Nigerian Press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 as amended by the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1999 as are listed in the sub-joined schedule are inconsistent with Section 39 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and therefore are unconstitutional null and void. –

6. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents and or representatives from implementing or otherwise giving effect in any manner whatsoever to the said provisions or any part thereof.

The facts contained in the supporting affidavit are not substantially relevant to the questions for determination and the reliefs sought in the originating summons as they only relate to the status of the Plaintiffs and grounds on which they have sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Nigerian Press Council as Amended by Decree 60 of 1999.

In the course of the proceedings, the court upon application for leave to consolidate ordered the consolidation in this suit with another suit No. FHC/L/CS/906/99, filed by the INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF MEDIA RIGHTS AGENDA & ORS VS THE NIGERIAN PRESS COUNCIL & OR.

i ne reiieib sought m unsi suit cue dcJai alci’ y \i\ the ^amc tcrrr.G v/ith the rsliefc in the instant suit, challenging the constitutionality of Sections 26A, 26B (1) and (2), Section 26D (1) and (2); Section 26F (1) and (2); section 26G (1) (a) (b) and (2) and section 24B of the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1999, on ground of inconsistency with sections 45 (1) and 39 (2) of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.Secondly, they are challenging the constitutionality of Section 16,17 and 19 of Decree 60 of 1992 and sections 16, 17 and 18 (2) of Decree 60 of 1999 on ground of inconsistency with provision of section 39 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, therefore null and void.
Thirdly, they are challenging the constitutionality of section 7 (3) of Decree No.60 of 1999 on grounds of inconsistency with section 39 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

In support of the reliefs, the Plaintiffs formulated four (4) questions for determination, which are set out below as follows: The originating summons is supported by 18 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the 2nd Defendant, Mr. Osaro Odemungee. I shall refer to the affidavit in the course of this judgment whenever it is necessary. Parties filed and exchanged written addresses.

At this stage it is important to state that the Plaintiffs in suit no. FHC/L/CS/906/99 after obtaining leave to consolidate the two suits did not take any further step to prosecute the suit. There is nothing in the record to show that the Plaintiffs in the suit have filed and served the processes on the defendants, and no record of further appearance or participation in the proceedings throughout the career of the case which has spanned a decade.

When the case was reassigned to me and order for hearing notice was made, there was no response from the Plaintiffs in the 2nd case, and not surprisingly

also, no written addresses which have been ordered have teen filed by the Plaintiffs.The above scenario clearly has demonstrated the total lack of interest on the part of the Plaintiffs in suit No. FHC/L/CS/906/99 in prosecuting this suit, their failure to file the originating process and serve them in an eloquent testimony of their clear intention to abandon the suit, but since there is no application on the part of the defendants to dismiss the suit and also since consolidation of action is not the same thing as merger or subsumation, each case is to retain its distinct identity.

See – DIAB NASR VS COMPLETE HOUSE ENTERPRISES (NIGERIA) LTD (1977) 5 SC 1. I will in the circumstance strike out the suit NO. FHC/L/CS/908/99 under Order 38 Rule 8 of the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules 2000 and it is accordingly struck out.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, A. M. Lawal Esq. who filed the Plaintiffs’ written address formulated the following issues for determination

1. Whether having regard to the provisions of Section 4(2)(4)(a) and (b) of the constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 the power of National Assembly to make laws for the Peace, Order and good governance of Nigeria is not limited to: (i) Matters in the exclusive legislative list set out in Part 1 of 2nd Schedule to the Constitution, (ii) Matters in the concurrent legislative list set out fa the 1st column of Part 2 of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution. (Hi)

And other matters with respect to which it is expressly empoweredJaythe constitution to make laws.

2. Whether the Nigerian press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 and Nigerian Press Council (Amend) Decree No. 60 of 1999 both which purport to legislate on “the press” are not inconsistent with Section 4 (2) (4) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution since the press is not one of the matters within the legislative competence of the National Assembly.

The Defendant on the other hand filed his written address dated the 19th day of June, 2009 in which he formulated three issues for determination, namely: 1. Whether the National Assembly have (sic) power to legislate on the press, the subject matter of the Press Council Decree No. 85 of 1992 and the Nigerian Press Council (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1999 (now Act). 2. Whether certain provisions of the Decree are inconsistent with 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 3. Whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to institute this action.

guaranteed under Section 39 of the constitution. The Act has rather created an illicit ombudsman in the council, which will certainly be used to define and tailor the editorial directions and policies of the media. This is not the dream of our constitutional makers. The dream is for a free speech country where views and opinions are shared openly, freely though any medium whatsoever without threat of sanction.

The laws that specifically deprive the limit of these rights of speech are quite hardy, in specific instances to deal with those who abuse the rights.

I find the Act oppressive, overbearing and grossly not compatible with a standard of a society. The Plaintiffs have undoubtedly established their reliefs numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 are accordingly granted. However, I have resolved the 1st issue against the Plaintiff.