General
SERAP, CJID Challenge Imposition of Fines on Media Houses
By Adedapo Adesanya
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) on Sunday said it has filed a lawsuit against President Muhammadu Buhari for imposing fines on media houses for allegedly glorifying terrorism.
SERAP also wants the court to “declare arbitrary and illegal the N5 million imposed on Trust TV, Multichoice Nigeria Limited, NTA-Startimes Limited and TelcCom Satellite Limited, over their documentaries on terrorism in the country.”
The suit, which was co-filed by the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID), has the Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, and the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) joined as defendants.
Business Post had reported how NBC imposed the fines on the media houses including Trust TV on the grounds that their documentaries glorified the activities of bandits and undermined national security, an act that contravenes the provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.
However, the groups in suit number FHC/L/CS/1486/2022 filed last Friday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, 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.”
“The NBC and Mr Lai Mohammed have not shown that the documentaries by the media houses would impose a specific risk of harm to a legitimate State interest that outweighs the public interest in the information provided by the documentaries,” a statement issued by SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, partly read.
“The documentaries by these independent media houses pose no risk to any definite interest in national security or public order.”
The plaintiffs stated that “It is inconsistent and incompatible with the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] to invoke the grounds of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ as justifications for suppressing access to information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security.”
It argued that the documentaries by the independent media houses are in the public interest, and punishing the media houses simply for raising public awareness about these issues would have a disproportionate and chilling effect on their work, and on the work of other journalists and Nigerians.
“The action by the NBC and Mr Lai Mohammed is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, as it is contrary to section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, and international human rights treaties including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has ratified.”
The suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Ms Adelanke Aremo read in part: “A fine is a criminal sanction and only the court is empowered by the Constitution to impose it. Fine imposed by regulatory agencies like the NBC without recourse to the courts is unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional.”
“The grounds of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ used as the bases for sanctioning the media houses are entirely contrary to constitutional and international standards on freedom of expression and access to information.”
“Imposing any fine whatsoever without due process of law is arbitrary, as it contravenes the principles of Nemo judex in causa sua which literally means one cannot be a judge in his own cause and audi alteram partem which means no one should be condemned unheard.”
“Article 19 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes the right to freedom of opinion without interference. Article 19(2) establishes Nigeria’s obligations to respect ‘the right to freedom of expression,’ which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, regardless of frontiers.”
“Under article 19(3), restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be ‘provided by law’, and necessary ‘for respect of the rights or reputations of others’ or ‘for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health and morals’”
“Although article 19(3) recognizes ‘national security’ as a legitimate aim, the Human Rights Council, the body charged with monitoring implementation of the Covenant, has stressed ‘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 grounds for imposing fines on these independent media houses fail to meet the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality.”
“The requirement of necessity also implies an assessment of the proportionality of the grounds, with the aim of ensuring that the excuse of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ and ‘national security’ are not used as a pretext to unduly intrude upon the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.”
The plaintiffs are also seeking the following reliefs:
A Declaration that the act of the Defendants imposing a fine of Five Million Naira each on the independent media houses is unlawful, inconsistent with, and amounts to a breach of the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and therefore a violation of the rights to freedom of expression, access to information, and media freedom;
A Declaration that the use of the Broadcasting Code by the NBC to impose sanctions on the independent media houses for an alleged infraction without recourse to the court constitutes an infringement on the provisions of sections 6[1] & [6][b] and 36[1] of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 and Articles 1 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party;
A Declaration that the provisions of the National Broadcasting Commission Act and the Nigeria Broadcasting Code which are arbitrarily being used by the Defendants to sanction, harass, intimidate and restrict the independent media houses are inconsistent and incompatible with sections 36[1], 39, and 22 of the Nigerian Constitution, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are null and void to the extent of their inconsistency and incompatibility;
A Declaration that the Defendants lack the legal power and authority to impose penalty unlawfully and unilaterally, including fines, suspension, withdrawal of license, or any form of punishment whatsoever on the independent media houses for promoting access to diverse opinions and information on issues of public importance;
An Order of Court setting aside of the fine of Five Million Naira imposed by the Defendants, through the 3rd Defendant, each on Trust TV, Multichoice Nigeria Limited, TelCom Satellite Limited (TSTV) and NTA-Startimes Limited for televising the documentary by the British Broadcasting Corporation “BBC Africa Eye” titled “Bandits Warlords of Zamfara”;
An Order of Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants or any other authority, persons or group of persons from unlawfully shutting down, imposing fine, suspension, withdrawal of license or doing anything whatsoever to harass and intimidate or impose criminal punishment on the independent media houses or any of Nigeria’s journalists and media houses for promoting access to diverse information on issues of public importance;
And any other order or other order(s) that the Court deems fit to make in the circumstances
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.
General
FG Boosts Civil Servants’ Pay with New Allowance Review
By Adedapo Adesanya
The federal government has approved a sweeping increase in peculiar allowances and other welfare benefits for civil servants, aimed at improving take-home pay and boosting morale across the public service.
The announcement was made on Friday by the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Didi Walson-Jack, during a press briefing in Abuja, where she outlined key reforms endorsed by the Federal Executive Council (FEC).
According to Mrs Walson-Jack, the review affects workers under both the Consolidated Public Service Salary Structure (CONPSS) and the Consolidated Research and Allied Institutions Salary Structure (CONRAISS), ensuring a broad-based impact across all cadres.
She said the revised peculiar allowances have been structured to reflect across all grade levels, resulting in a meaningful increase in earnings for both junior and senior officers.
In addition, the government approved an upward review of several key allowances, including duty tour allowance (DTA), estacode, and book allowance.
Mrs Walson-Jack noted that virtually all allowances listed under the Public Service Rules have now been revised.
A major highlight of the reform is the approval of 100 per cent Duty Tour Allowance for civil servants attending approved training programmes, regardless of whether travel is involved.
Beyond salary-related adjustments, the government also introduced a new exit benefit scheme for retiring civil servants under the Contributory Pension Scheme. The scheme provides 100 per cent of a retiree’s total annual emoluments as an exit package, in addition to their pension, effective January 1, 2026.
Mrs Walson-Jack described the move as a step toward ensuring dignity in retirement, stressing that no public servant should leave service without adequate financial support.
The government also confirmed the operationalisation of the Employee Compensation Scheme, designed to provide financial protection for workers who suffer job-related injuries or death.
The reforms come amid growing calls from labour unions for improved welfare, as rising living costs continue to put pressure on workers. Analysts say the combined measures could significantly enhance financial stability for civil servants and improve overall productivity in the public sector.
General
Surrogacy Laws in Ukraine: What Every International Parent Must Know Before Starting the Process
One of the primary reasons international couples choose surrogacy in Ukraine is the country’s clear and well-defined legal framework. Unlike many nations where surrogacy exists in a legal gray area or is outright prohibited, Ukraine has codified the rights of intended parents, the obligations of surrogate mothers, and the procedures for establishing legal parenthood.
Understanding these laws is not just advisable but essential. Proper legal preparation ensures that your parental rights are protected, that the process runs smoothly, and that your child’s citizenship and documentation are handled correctly from day one.
The Legal Foundation of Surrogacy in Ukraine
Surrogacy in Ukraine is primarily regulated by two pieces of legislation: the Family Code of Ukraine and the Civil Code of Ukraine. The most significant provision is Article 123, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code, which states that when an embryo conceived through assisted reproductive technologies is transferred to another woman’s body, the married couple who initiated the procedure are recognized as the parents of the child.
This provision is remarkably protective of intended parents. It means that from the moment of embryo transfer, the intended parents are considered the legal parents. The surrogate mother has no legal claim to the child, and there is no requirement for an adoption process or court hearing to establish parenthood.
Additionally, Article 139 of the Family Code reinforces the principle that the surrogate cannot contest the parentage of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement. This dual-layer legal protection is one of the strongest in the world and is a major reason why surrogacy in Ukraine is so attractive to international couples.
Who Is Eligible for Surrogacy in Ukraine?
Ukrainian law sets specific eligibility criteria for intended parents. To qualify for a surrogacy program, you must meet the following requirements:
Marital status: Both partners must be legally married. Ukraine requires a valid marriage certificate, which must be translated into Ukrainian and apostilled.
Medical indication: There must be a documented medical reason why the intended mother cannot carry a pregnancy. This could include uterine abnormalities, repeated IVF failures, recurrent pregnancy loss, or other reproductive health conditions.
Heterosexual couple: Under current Ukrainian legislation, surrogacy is available only to heterosexual married couples. Single parents and same-sex couples are not eligible at this time.
Genetic connection: At least one of the intended parents must have a genetic connection to the child. This means that either the eggs or the sperm (or both) must come from the intended parents. Donor gametes may be used for one component if medically necessary.
The Surrogacy Agreement: Legal Protection for All Parties
Before any medical procedures begin, a comprehensive surrogacy agreement must be executed between the intended parents and the surrogate mother. This legally binding contract is a cornerstone of the process and covers several critical areas.
The agreement defines the rights and obligations of both parties, the compensation structure for the surrogate, medical care provisions during pregnancy, conditions under which the agreement may be terminated, and the procedures for establishing parenthood after birth. Ukrainian law requires this agreement to be notarized, and experienced agencies ensure that all legal requirements are met.
Working with an agency that has in-house legal expertise is essential for ensuring the agreement complies with Ukrainian law and addresses the specific needs of the intended parents. Agencies like Militta provide dedicated legal teams that handle all documentation, from the initial surrogacy agreement to the final birth registration.
For more details about how the legal and medical process works, visit Militta’s comprehensive surrogacy guide.
Birth Registration and Documentation Process
One of the most important moments in a surrogacy journey is the birth of the child and the subsequent documentation process. In Ukraine, this is remarkably straightforward compared to many other countries.
Immediately after the birth, the child’s birth certificate is issued by the local civil registration office (known as RAGS in Ukraine). The certificate lists the intended parents as the mother and father, with no mention of surrogacy or the surrogate mother. The surrogate’s consent is not required for this registration because Ukrainian law already recognizes the intended parents’ rights from the moment of embryo transfer.
After obtaining the birth certificate, the intended parents must proceed with several additional steps. The birth certificate must be apostilled and translated for use in their home country. They must then visit their home country’s embassy or consulate in Ukraine to register the child’s birth, obtain citizenship documentation, and apply for a passport or travel document for the newborn.
The timeline for this post-birth documentation process typically ranges from two to six weeks, depending on the home country’s embassy processing times. During this period, intended parents usually stay in Ukraine, and their agency provides accommodation assistance and logistical support.
Country-Specific Considerations for International Parents
While Ukrainian law is clear and protective, intended parents must also consider the legal requirements of their home country. Different nations have varying approaches to recognizing children born through international surrogacy.
Parents from countries within the European Union, for example, may need to go through additional recognition procedures depending on their specific national laws. Some EU countries, such as Spain and France, have historically been more complex in recognizing surrogacy-born children, while others, like Portugal, have clearer pathways.
Parents from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and China each face their own specific documentation requirements. A knowledgeable surrogacy agency will be familiar with the requirements of your home country and can guide you through the specific steps needed to bring your child home.
Surrogate Rights and Protections in Ukraine
Ukrainian surrogacy law also establishes protections for surrogate mothers. To be eligible, a surrogate must be between 18 and 35 years of age, have at least one healthy child of her own, and pass comprehensive medical and psychological evaluations. These requirements ensure that surrogates are making informed, voluntary decisions.
Surrogates in Ukraine receive compensation that is contractually guaranteed, along with full medical care throughout the pregnancy and a reasonable recovery period after birth. Reputable agencies ensure that surrogates are treated with dignity and that their health and wellbeing are prioritized throughout the process.
Surrogacy in Ukraine in 2026: Current Status and Safety
As of 2026, surrogacy programs in Ukraine continue to operate with full legal backing. The legal framework governing surrogacy has remained stable, and clinics in central and western Ukraine, particularly in Kyiv and Lviv, maintain their operational capacity.
Reputable agencies have implemented comprehensive safety protocols to protect all parties. This includes careful selection of medical facilities in secure locations, contingency planning for logistics, and continuous communication with intended parents throughout the process. International travel to Ukraine is facilitated through European transit routes, and agencies assist with all travel arrangements.
Frequently Asked Questions About Surrogacy Law in Ukraine
Can the surrogate mother change her mind and keep the baby?
No. Under Ukrainian law, the surrogate has no legal rights to the child. The intended parents are recognized as the legal parents from the moment of embryo transfer, and the birth certificate is issued in their names.
Do I need to go through an adoption process after the surrogate gives birth?
No. Unlike many other countries, Ukraine does not require any adoption proceedings for surrogacy-born children. The intended parents’ names appear directly on the birth certificate.
What documents do I need to start a surrogacy program in Ukraine?
You will typically need a valid marriage certificate (apostilled and translated), passports for both intended parents, medical documentation confirming the need for surrogacy, and a notarized surrogacy agreement. Your agency will provide a complete document checklist.
How do I bring my surrogacy-born child back to my home country?
After obtaining the Ukrainian birth certificate, you must register the birth at your home country’s embassy in Ukraine, obtain citizenship documentation, and apply for a passport or travel document for the child. This process typically takes two to six weeks.
Is surrogacy in Ukraine safe in 2026?
Yes. Surrogacy programs operate successfully in central and western Ukraine, with established safety protocols. Leading agencies like Militta have extensive experience managing programs for international clients and ensure the safety and wellbeing of all parties involved.
Ensuring a Legally Secure Surrogacy Journey
The legal landscape of surrogacy in Ukraine is one of the most favorable in the world for intended parents. With clear legislation that protects parental rights from the very beginning, a straightforward birth registration process, and no need for adoption proceedings, Ukraine provides a secure foundation for building your family.
The key to a successful surrogacy journey lies in thorough preparation and partnership with experienced professionals. By choosing a reputable agency with proven legal expertise, you can navigate the process with confidence, knowing that every step is handled in compliance with Ukrainian law and with your family’s best interests at heart.
General
ADC Lawmakers Oppose Tinubu’s $516m Loan Request for Highway
By Adedapo Adesanya
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) Legislators’ Forum has condemned the latest move by President Bola Tinubu to secure Senate approval for an additional external loan of $516,333,070 for the Sokoto–Badagry Super Highway project.
Mr Tinubu requested Senate approval for a $516.3 million syndicated loan to finance key sections of the Sokoto–Badagry Superhighway, a major infrastructure project under his administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda from Deutsche Bank.
The request, contained in a letter read during plenary on Thursday by the Senate President, Mr Godswill Akpabio, seeks legislative authorisation in line with Sections 16 and 21 of the Debt Management Office (Establishment) Act, 2011.
However, the opposition lawmakers said it is not only alarming but becoming of the Tinubu administration to make borrowing its default economic policy, with little regard for sustainability, accountability, or the well-being of future generations.
The forum, in a statement jointly signed by its chairman, Mr Uko Ndukwe Nkole, as well as leaders from each geopolitical zone, noted that while no responsible opposition undermines the importance of infrastructure development, the cost and conditions of such projects must be queried.
According to the ADC lawmakers, Mr Tinubu’s government has failed to convincingly demonstrate that its endless appetite for loans is guided by a coherent, transparent and economically viable repayment strategy.
“Instead, Nigerians are witnessing a troubling pattern; one where debt accumulation is prioritised over prudent fiscal management, innovation, and domestic resource mobilisation.
“Nigeria is already weighed down by a crushing debt burden, with debt servicing swallowing a staggering proportion of national revenue. Yet, rather than confronting this reality with discipline and reform, the Tinubu administration continues to plunge the country deeper into what can only be described as a looming debt catastrophe.
“Each new loan tightens the noose around the nation’s economic sovereignty, leaving future generations to pay for today’s lack of foresight.
“Even more disturbing is the timing of this request. As the nation inches closer to a major general election cycle, Nigerians are right to question the motives behind this borrowing spree.
“Is this truly about development, or is it another attempt to create avenues for political patronage and electoral advantage? History has taught us to be wary of last-minute, large-scale financial commitments made under the guise of national interest,” the statement read in part.
The ADC Legislators’ Forum insisted that the National Assembly must not act as a rubber stamp or a pro-group of President Tinubu in this matter.
It said the Senate, in particular, must rise to its constitutional responsibility by demanding full disclosure of the project’s financial details, procurement processes, cost-benefit analysis, and a credible repayment plan, as anything short of this would amount to a betrayal of public trust.
The lawmakers called on the administration to redirect its focus toward policies that can genuinely strengthen Nigeria’s economy; policies that promote productivity, industrial growth, job creation, and the plugging of revenue leakages.
“We must clearly state that governance is not a free ride without consequences. Those who make decisions today that endanger the economic future of millions of Nigerians must understand that a day of reckoning will inevitably come.
“The Nigerian people will demand answers, accountability, and justice for policies that have deepened hardship and mortgaged the nation’s destiny. Nigeria stands at a critical crossroads.
“We can either choose the path of responsibility, discipline, and sustainable growth, or continue down this perilous road of debt dependency and economic vulnerability,” the statement added.
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn
