A Federal High Court, Lagos, has struck out the suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and two others for sanctioning some media houses in the country.
Striking out the suit, Justice Alexander Owoeye who presided over the court, held that SERAP lacks the requisite jurisdiction to institute the suit.
SERAP in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/469/32, listed the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria; National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and Minister of Information and Culture, as first to third respondents.
Specifically, SERAP had asked the court for the followings: “Whether the 2nd defendant ‘last warning’ and the threat to shut down and revoke the licences of broadcast stations and/or the sanction of any broadcast stations by the 2nd defendant on the ground of allegedly allowing Nigerians to use the broadcast stations platforms to make utterances that are subversive, hateful, and inciting in nature, particularly in the post-2023 Presidential Election is not inconsistent and incompatible with the rights of the Plaintiffs’ and Nigerians as a whole, to freedom of expression, access to information, and media freedom guaranteed under section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.
“Whether the 2nd defendant’s ‘last warning’ and the threat to shut down and revoke the licences of broadcast stations and/or the sanction of any broadcast stations by the 2nd defendant if they continue (and/or for continuing) to aliow ‘Nigerians to use the broadcast stations’ platforms ‘to make utterances that are subversive, hateful, and inciting in nature, particularly in the post-2023 Presidential Election” is not in breach of the plaintiffs’ and Nigerians’ rights to fair hearing pursuant to sections 6(1) & (6)(b) and 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and Article 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.
“Whether use by the 2nd Defendant of vague and . undefined phrases such as ‘unpatriotic’, individuals’, ‘subversive’,, ‘hateful’, ‘inciting’, “unguarded’, ‘divisive’, ‘dangerous and negative conversations’, to threaten to revoke the licenses and shut down broadcast stations and/or the sanction of any, broadcast stations cannot be given subjective interpretations and invoked arbitrarily to constitute an interference with the rights to freedom of the Plaintiff and Nigerians contrary to the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.
Consequent on determination of the above questions the plaintiff claims the following reliefs: A declaration that the 2nd defendant’s ‘last warning’ and the threat to shut down and revoke the licences of broadcast stations and/or the sanction of any broadcast stations by the 2nd Defendant for allegedly allowing Nigerians to use the broadcast stations’ Platforms “to make utterances that are subversive, hateful, and inciting in nature, Particularly in the post-2023 Presidential Election” is inconsistent and incompatible with the rights of the Plaintiffs’ and Nigerians as a whole, to freedom of expression, access to information, and media freedom guaranteed under section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and . Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.
“A declaration that the 2nd defendant’s ‘last warning’ and the threat to shut down and revoke the licences of broadcast stations an and/or the sanction of any broadcast stations by the 2nd defendant if they continue Cand/or for continuing) to allow Nigerians to use the broadcast stations’ platforms ‘to’ make utterances that are subversive, hateful, and inciting in nature, particularly in the post-2023 Presidential Election’ is in breach of the plaintiffs’ and Nigerians’ rights to fair hearing pursuant to sections 6(1) & (6)(b) and 36(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of 32 Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and article 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state’ party.
“A DECLARATION that the use of vague and undefined. phrases such as ‘unpatriotic individuals’, ‘subversive’, ‘hateful’, ‘inciting’, ‘unguarded’, ‘divisive’, ‘dangerous and negative conversations’, by the 2nd defendant to threaten to revoke the licenses of broadcast stations and the sanction of any broadcast stations by the 2nd defendant can be given subjective interpretations and invoked arbitrarily to constitute an interference with the rights to freedom of information and expression of the plaintiffs, and Nigerians contrary. to the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Article 9 of the African charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.
“A declaration that the act of the 2nd defendant in arbitrarily sanctioning 25 stations for allegedly violating the Nigeria Broadcasting Code during the presidential and national assembly elections and serving warning letters to 16 other stations is directly in conflict with sections 6(a) & (b), 22, 36(1) and 3901) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party, and therefore becomes null and void for that ‘reason Is null, void, and ultra vires.
“An order of the Court compelling the 1st defendant to direct the 2nd and 3rd defendants to withdraw the threat of last warning and any sanction made by the 2nd defendant against any broadcast stations in compliance with the provisions of section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, and Nigeria’s human rights obligations under Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international treaties to which Nigeria is a state party.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether jointly or severally or any other authority, person or group of persons from unilaterally revoking the licenses of the broadcast stations and shutting down the stations.”
In urging the court to dismiss suit, NBC through its counsel, Olanrewaju Osinaike, filed a Preliminary Objection accompanied with a 22-paragraph affidavit deposed by one Chibuzor Nnodum, a Legal Officer in the employment of NBC.
In the NBC’s Preliminary Objection, Barrister Osinaike, listed 14 grounds for the court t strike out the suit.
The grounds were: “The plaintiff/respondent lack the locus standi to institute this action.
“The plaintiff/respondent’s instant suit is caught up with the doctrine of res judicata and therefore constitute an abuse of the judicial processes of Court.
“The 2nd defendant/applicant is a regulatory agency set up by an Act of the National Assembly (the National Broadcasting Commission Act, Cap. Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004), conferred with powers to regulate and control the Broadcasting industry in Nigeria.
“The 2nd defendant/applicant has the statutory responsibility for regulating and controlling the broadcast industry whilst also upholding the principles of equity and fairness in such conduct. It also establishes and disseminates a national broadcast code in the setting of standards and the powers to sanction any broadcast station in respect thereof under the National Broadcasting Commission Act.
“All steps taken by the 2nd defendant/applicant are strictly in accordance with its statutory powers and accompanying establishing functions.
“The plaintiff/respondent have instituted this action without any written consent of the 25 broadcasting stations allegedly sanctioned by the 2nd defendant.
“The plaintiff and other members of their group had previously filed an earlier suit with similar reliefs in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1436/2020 at the Federal High Court, Abuja in The Registered Trustees of Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project & 6 Ors (suing for themselves and on behalf of 255 concerned Nigerians) v. National Broadcasting Commission & 2 Ors wherein judgment was delivered by Honourable Justice N.E. Maha on 26th April 2022 (filed as Additional Authority in this action.
“That pursuant to the Judgment of Honourable Justice Maha, wherein the judgment found against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants, the instant suit is accordingly Caught up with the doctrine of res judicata.
“That the plaintiff have not shown how the alleged sanctions of the 25 broadcast directly affected its interests howsoever by the statutory powers conferred on the 2nd defendant by the National Assembly.
“That the 25 broadcast stations allegedly affected by the act of the 2nd defendant are not parties to this suit to challenge the sanctions howsoever.
“The plaintiff/respondent did not indicate howsoever the nature of the prejudice occasioned to them by the 2nd defendant’s decision nor how they will personally or as a group suffer due to the sanctions of the 25 broadcast stations not did they disclose sufficient legal interests or how they will be affected as a group and how it will affect those they allege to sue on their behalf as individuals.
“The plaintiff/respondent did not indicate how the meeting the Director-General of the 2nd defendant had with major network broadcast stations to discuss the coverage of the elections heid on the 25 February 2023 warning them from allowing their platforms to be used by unpatriotic individuals to make utterances that are capable of sabotaging the peaceful co-existence of the country resulted in rights of Nigerian citizens and media houses to freedom of information and expression.
“The plaintiff commenced another matter in the Federal High Court, Lagos Division before your Lordship’s brother Honourable Justice Osiagor in with similar reliefs albeit worded differently in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1582/2022 by way of an Originating Summons dated 23rd August 2022 and amended on 22nd February 2023 (The Originating Processes are attached and marked as Exhibits NBC2 & NBC3 respectively).
“The actions of the 2nd defendant/applicant are all pursuant to its powers under the National Broadcasting Commission Act which does not suppress the fundamental human rights of any broadcasting stations and Nigerian citizens to freedom of expression and information in any manner or form.”
Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Owoeye, after legally examined all processes filed; authorities cited and issues formulated held that; “I have looked at the processes placed before this Court by the parties and I am inclined to agree with learned Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant that the subject matter and parties in the instant suit and those in suit No. FHC/L/CS/1582/2022 are different.
“The 2nd defendant/applicant has not Successfully justified its claims that the Plaintiff/Respondent abused the process of this Court.
“Premised on the above, I resolve Issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the 2nd defendant/applicant.
“On the whole, I have resolved two issues in this objection in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. However, the finding made that the plaintiff/ respondent lacks Locus standi to institute this action as he has done is fatal.
“It is trite that where a plaintiff lacks locus standi to commence an action in Court, the action so commenced becomes incompetent because it is incapable of activating the jurisdiction of the court, where a plaintiff has no locus standi to bring an action the suit becomes incompetent and consequently the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it. The law is further that when a Plaintiff has been found not to have the standing to sue or locus standi as in the instant case, the question whether other issues in the case had been properly decided or not does not arise. This is because the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The correct position of the law therefore is that where a plaintiff is held to lack the locus standi to maintain his action, the finding goes to the jurisdiction of the court and denies it jurisdiction to determine the action. The proper order, in such a situation, therefore, is to strike out the claim.
“In effect, having found that the Plaintiff/Respondent lacks the requisite jurisdiction to institute this action. Therefore, the need to consider this Suit on its merit no longer arises.
“Consequently, I strike out this case, that is Suit No, FHC/L/CS/469/2023 between the Incorporated Trustees of Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability (SERAP) and the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria; National Broadcasting Corporation; Minister of Information and Culture.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.”
