Business Post Contributor
By Emmanuel Udom
The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) has challenged the judgement of a Federal High Court in Abuja, which said it has no powers to impose sanctions on erring broadcast stations in Nigeria.
Justice James Omotosho had on November 23, 2023, held that the regulator cannot be a judge in its case by imposing fines on broadcast media platforms it believes violated the broadcasting rules.
On March 1, 2019, NBC announced the imposition of a fine of N500,000 each on 45 broadcast stations for alleged contraventions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.
Angered by this, an Abuja-based lawyer, Mr Noah Ajare, on behalf of Media Rights Agenda (MRA), challenged the powers of NBC to fine broadcasters.
While delivering his judgement on the matter on May 10, 2023, Justice Omotosho held that fines are sanctions imposed on a person who has been found guilty of a criminal offence and that under the law in Nigeria, only courts of law are empowered to impose sanctions for criminal offences.
According to the judge, the NBC “is neither a court nor a judicial tribunal to make pronouncements on the guilt of broadcast stations notwithstanding what the NBC Code says,” adding that the commission’s action violated the Constitution.
On November 23, 2023, NBC asked the high court judge to set aside his earlier judgement, which was refused and NBC is challenging this at the Court of Appeal in Abuja through a four-ground notice of appeal.
In a Notice of Appeal filed on its behalf by Mr Babajide Koku (SAN), Mr Victor Ogude (SAN), Mr Kehinde Wilkey, and Ms Aanuoluwapo Babalola, the agency argued that Justice Omotosho erred in law when he refused to set aside the judgment, which the NBC alleged was demonstrated before him to have been deceitfully obtained on the ground that the NBC was indolent and ought to have objected to the substantive suit timeously.
In the particulars of error, NBC said the law confers on a court the inherent power to review and set aside its earlier judgment on grounds of fraud and deceit if those grounds are subsequently brought to its knowledge and demonstrated to exist and alleged that by failing to set aside its earlier judgment in the face of evidence of fraud, the court permitted MRA to perpetuate and/or enjoy the benefit of the fraud practised on the court.
The second ground of appeal is that the judge erred in law when he held that he would not set aside his earlier judgment because “res judicata” was not a ground for settling aside a default judgment.
