NAME

OLOWOPOROKU MUYIWA TOPE

LEVEL

500 (PART TIME)

MATRIC NUMBER

060912014

DEPARTMENT

MASS COMMUNICATION

COURSE TITLE / CODE

MASS MEDIA LAW (MAS 404)

LECTURER

PASTOR TAYO POPOOLA (PhD)

QUESTION

Sedition and False News have been described as the most celebrated media cases in Nigeria. Do you agree?

TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION

HISTORY OF SEDITION

SEDITION AND FALSE NEWS: OVERVIEW OF PROVISIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MASS MEDIA AND CONSTITUTIONAL

GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

CONTENTION BETWEEN PRESS FREEDOM AND SEDITION

MEDIA CASES: CHRONICLE OF RECENT CASES OF SEDITION AND FALSE NEWS IN NIGERIA

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

Several journalists in Nigeria, past and contemporary, have often been unjustifiably punished, intimidated,

brutalized and harassed by the security operatives and apparatus in the course of performing their dual

mandate as “a voice of the people and watchdogs on the government”.

The role of the media in a contemporary nation state is to be the conscience of the public by adequately

informing the public of the goings-on in the government circle, that is what goes on at the corridor of power,

and, how are those charged with the responsibility of steering our affairs going about it; they are also

responsible for communicating the viewpoint and feelings of the public to the government.

It is however unfortunate that the government had over the years seen the media as enemies of the state and

object of ridicule and continuous molestation, even when they criticize the government for the purpose of

improving on governance and the well being of the masses. To protect itself from the criticism of all agencies

of the mass media which are often times constructive, government enacted and retains the law of sedition – a

complete aberration in a modern nation state and democracies.

Indeed, the federal government is using outdated criminal charges to suppress a story that could embarrass it.

Authorities are acting more as autocrats who punish and forgive than as the leaders of a free and open

democracy.”

CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION

Mass Media

A medium is a substance through which a force acts or an effect is transmitted, or that through which or by

which anything is accomplished. From this definition we could say that the medium makes possible the

creation of the desired response.

Dominick (2009) a medium is a channel through which a message travels from the source to the receiver”

(“medium” is singular; “media” is plural). HE further pointed up thus:

Mass media are the channels used for mass communication. …Mass media will

include not only the mechanical devices that transmit and sometimes store the

message (TV cameras, radio microphones, printing presses) but also the

institutions that use these machines to transmit messages. A media vehicle is a

single component of the mass media, such as newspaper, radio station, TV

network, or magazine.

Having defined mass media, we may have to progress into defining sedition and false news.

Sedition

Sedition is a political offence and thus politically motivated. According to Abati (2006) citing Stephen (Digest of

the Criminal Law, 9th edition, Art 114.) sedition:

inherited its definition from the original phrases of the 19th Century jurist as an

intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against the

person of, her Majesty, her heirs and possessors, or the government and

Constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of

Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite Her Majesty's subjects to

attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church

or state by law established or to raise discontent or disaffection among Her

Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between

different classes of subjects.

This definition seems comprehensive, all embracing of crime of sedition. Obviously, the definition existed at a

time in England that the government resisted all attempts at opposing it. There is no doubt that the above

idea has relationship with the concept of the divine right of kings. In recent times, sedition has been described

as being quasi-political in nature, in that it is designed to ensure stability and orderly government. Its

endorsement varies according to the type of government in power and the attitude of the courts, thus what is

seditious if published under one regime or government may not be seditious under another.

It has been contended by some writers that sedition is probably the one offence which seriously impinges on

the liberty of the citizens to express themselves freely. The perpetual problem it seems to raise is that of

striking a balance between individual freedom of expression and the security of the state.

Consequently, there seems to be little or no activity that may not fall within the ambit of the definition

provided it has the tendency of causing disaffection for the government.

With this, even a fair and balanced criticism may have a tendency of exciting contempt or hatred for the

government of the day or any section of it.

False News

This refers to the act of giving a details of account not based on facts. This emphasizes the position of

accountability in news reporting. It is incumbent on any journalist (greenhorns or experienced) to ascertain all

the facts supplied and ensure that they are nothing but the truth. It is no longer sufficient to say “crosscheck

your fact, if in doubt, leave out”; but crosscheck your fact, if in doubt check again, if still in doubt, then you

leave out.” This is one of the critical areas where journalists in Nigeria err.

HISTORY OF SEDITION

The law relating to seditious publication has a colonial origin in Nigeria. It was first introduced during the

governorship of Egerton in 1909. According to Fred Omu (1978), the law was introduced as a result of the

colonial administration being targets of persistent attacks by some educated elites especially Herbert

Macaulay, who was bold enough to publish a pamphlet entitled "Governor Egerton and the Railway" in 1908.

There, he levelled serious charges of maladministration against the Governor. He drew attention to the

Governor's disregard of serious allegations of scandals in the railway, his personification of prejudice, his

permitting minor consideration to take precedence over momentous issues, his neglect to direct criminal

prosecution against an alleged friend of his who was involved in the scandals and his expropriation of land. It is

noteworthy to observe that in spite of the fact that Governor Egerton introduced the law relating to seditious

publication, nobody was prosecuted during his tenure of office. Lord Lugard will go down in history as the first

to make use of the "unholy instrument." James Bright

Davis was to be the earliest victim. It was inevitable for he had penchant for criticising in very strong language,

some colonial policies which he detested. In one of his writings, he criticized the British policy in the following

language:

... A policy which threatens with ruin the progress and prosperity of the only town

of importance in the so-called colony of Nigeria ... by austerities and severities of

a continuous series of measures and enactment which could only have been

dictated by a rancorous negrophobism and which apart from German rule could

flourish under the British crown colony system of government to under a

constituted and authorized autocracy.

As if this was not enough, in another article he rejoiced with the people of Sierra-Leone for being rid of a

negrophobist Governor and expressed the hope that Nigeria would have such good fortune. It ran thus:

... The people of Nigeria and Lagos in particular will take courage from this fact

that someday or other whether distant or near their own relief from the iron and

cruel rule of their own administration is sure to come and we shall be freed from

the galling yoke of its iniquitous measures and laws...

For the above publications he was convicted and fined but this did not deter him. In August 1916, he again

attacked the British firm’s policies during the First World War in the-following words:

The system adopted by the British firms in the produce trade since the war... is

responsible for the strong undercurrent of sympathy for the German cause which

pervades the breast of the majority of the native population and the intensity of

this feeling is such that one frequently hears the wish and the most sanuquine

hopes expressed in the daily conversation of the people about trade that

Germany should win this war as they would to come under German rule if only to

escape and be saved from tyranny and exploitation of British merchants...

After convicting him, the judge felt he could not ignore the fact that on two separate occasions within the-9

months, James Davies had "chosen to publish wicked and malicious libels against (he government of Nigeria at

a time when it was the obvious duty of every right minded man to give to that government his most strenous

and uncompromising support."

Hebert Macaulay, the frontline nationalist was not to escape conviction under this law, when his newspaper

the "Daily News' gave prominence to a rumoured allegation that there was a plot to assassinate the ex-Eleko

who it was incorrectly reported was soon to return to Lagos.

The 'plot' rumour spread like wild fire, public excitement ran so high that outrages were allegedly perpetrated

on some important anti-Eleko personalities in the community.

It is important at this juncture, to bear in mind Nwabueze's views (1964:387) as regards the raison d'etre of a

law of sedition during the colonial period. In his views, the purpose of the law of sedition is:

...specifically designed to strengthen the hands of the colonial administration in

dealing with the possibility that a handful of educated natives might incite the

gullible populace to 'hatred, disloyalty or violence against the government

'because of the easy excitability of illiterate peasants and the bitter emotions

'which imperialism is apt to generate in the minds of the colonial peoples...

It will appear that there is unanimity between Nwabueze and Omu as regards the underlying motives behind

the introduction of the law relating to seditious publication in Nigeria.

The law, since its introduction in 1907 through its first amendment in 1909, has taken several forms. Even with

over 50 years of independence from colonial rule, this unseeming and unholy law still domicile in our statute

book, impinging on the freedom of expression given to all Nigerian in Sec 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.

SEDITION AND FALSE NEWS: OVERVIEW OF PROVISIONS

Our present law is a slightly modified version of the law in 1909. The portion relating to sedition is contained

in Sections 50 - 52 of the Criminal Code. For ease of reference may we set out the relevant provisions of the

law as regards sedition.

Section 51 of the Code11 creates the offence of sedition as follows:

(1) Any person who -

a) does or attempts to do or makes any preparation to do or conspires with any person to do any act with

a seditious intention;

b) utters any seditious words;

c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduced any seditious publication;

d) imports any seditious publication unless he has no: reason to believe that it is seditious; shall be guilty

of an offence and liable on conviction for a first offence to imprisonment for two years or to a fine of

N200.00 or to both. Such imprisonment

e) and fine and for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for 3 years and any seditious publication shall

be forfeited.

(2) Any person who without lawful excuse has in his possession any seditious publication shall be guilty of an

offence and liable on conviction, for a first offence, to imprisonment for one year or to a subsequent offence

to imprisonment for 2 years and such publication shall be forfeited.

Section 50 (2) defines seditious intention as follows:

a) to bring hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of the President or the

Governor of a state or the government of the federation or against the administration of justice in

Nigeria; or

b) to excite the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure the alteration otherwise

than by lawful means of any other-matter in Nigeria as by law established; or

c) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens or

d) other inhabitants of Nigeria or

e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the Population of Nigeria.

But an act, speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it

intends-

I. to show that the President or the Governor of a State has misled or mistaken in any measure in the

federation or a state as the case may be; or

II. to point out errors or defects in the government or Constitution of Nigeria; or of any state thereof as

by law established or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or

defects; or

III. to persuade the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure by lawful means the

alteration of any matter in Nigeria as by law established; or

IV. to point out with a view to their removal any matter which are producing or have a tendency to

produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Nigeria.

As regards False News, this is contained in the Newspaper Amendment Act of 1964 which says

“Any person who knowingly publishes false news could be liable for a jail term of 1 year or pay a fine of N400,

or both.

Under the Criminal Code, the law refers to stories likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or to disturb

public peace. The penalty is 3 years in jail with no option of fine.

CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MASS MEDIA AND CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM

OF EXPRESSION

Both the government and the media derive the powers and scope of operations from the statute book (The

Nigerian Constitution). But more often than none, the relationship between the government and the media

has been that of cat and mouse. The Nigerian constitution has not even allowed for a “jolly-going”

relationship.

For instance, Sec. 22 of Chapter 2 of the 1999 constitution provides that,

The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all

times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter, and

uphold the accountability and responsibility of the government to the people.

Like any other wishy-washy provision, it has no clause for enforcement and no criteria for measuring

conformity. Then out of necessity, or by a process of elimination, we have come to read the section to mean

holding members of the identified estates (Executive, Legislature and Judiciary) to the responsibility and

accountability to their oath. In English, to uphold means to either maintain or provide moral support. How do

the media now do either?

Since the section does no harm to the mass media, we move to section 39 which does some structural good

for the mass media. It provides for press freedom in 54 words.

Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression including freedom to hold

opinion and to receive and impart ideas or information without interference.

Altogether the section has 54 words to guide seekers of freedom in pursuit of the constitutional expectations

under section 22 and the general duties as fourth estate denizens.

With this great task assigned the media by the constitution, the relationship between the government and the

members of the fourth estate of the realm is spelt out. It means the press should go ahead and expose corrupt

practices, election rigging, bribery, nepotism and such vices in the government, political, corporate and

religious circle; we do not expect government officials to then see the media as friends or partners. The press

is a watchdog, according to the task assigned it by the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

Government needs the press for its survival because of its many, but invaluable roles, of watch dog, agenda

setting, and transmission of cultural values into the society. The press, however, cannot perform these roles in

the absence of constitutionally guaranteed freedom. I therefore leave this section with Francis Beacon’s

warning:

Words are like leaves. Where they most abound we cannot find the fruit of the

truth beneath.

CONTENTION BETWEEN PRESS FREEDOM AND SEDITION

In any political society, there are usually certain interests and values commonly expressed as legal rights,

which are so vital for the peaceful existence of society that the definition, maintenance and defence of such

rights are not left to the whims and caprices of individual members of the society. These claims or rights are

often expressed as “liberties” and “freedom” One of these rights and liberties is the freedom of expression

and of the press. The ultimate good of society is better enhanced by free trade in ideas because the best test

of truth is the power of thought and expression.

Nwabueze (1982) affirms thus:

Freedom of the speech and of the press, are indeed the very life of a political

community. Life in sense of physical existence is not really at stake for the

community since government itself cannot exist without a society to govern….

Free speech and free press are instruments of self government by the people

because they enable the people to be informed and educated about the affairs of

government.

Indeed, modern democratic societies are founded upon free speech. Press freedom in the context of modern

democracy should mean:

1. Freedom from initial censorship, i.e., no one should be prohibited from establishing a press,

2. freedom from subsequent proscription or ban on publication or distribution and

3. freedom from unreasonable punishment for what is said or published.

Sec. 39 (1) 1999 Constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria says

Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold

opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.

But questions have arisen as to whether this section is enough to guarantee press freedom under the

constitution.

Professor Nwabueze (1982) pointed out that:

Although the press is not specifically mentioned in this section, it is

unquestionably comprehended in freedom of expression.

This would have been but for certain words that have crept into our statute book since 1960.

Another question that now arises is what is the effect of the law of sedition on the concept of press freedom

in Nigeria. This question can only be answered in the context of Sec. 39 (3) of the 1999 Constitution which

says:

Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall invalidate any law that is

reasonably justifiable in a democratic society-

This provision, especially the phrase “reasonable justifiable”, is what the courts over the years have attempted

to define. As far as I am concerned, the dictum is vague and in-explicit, and cannot lead us anywhere.

However, the Supreme Court in DPP v. Chike Obi relied on this phrase to hold valid the law of sedition

contained in Sec. 50 of the Criminal Code because it is reasonably justifiable and therefore, not consistent with

Sec 25 (1) of the 1960 Constitution..

The question of laws which are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society cannot be determined by

reference to any established criteria and must be considered in the light of the particular legislation. May I,

therefore, humbly submit that the law of sedition cannot be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society of

the 21st century.

Araka C.J. (as he then was) laid down a general test in the case of The State v. Ivory Trumpet Publishing Co.,

where he posited that one needs to understand the content in which the statement entered into the statute

book, while the mischief or evil it was intended to prevent is considered. In this regard he further stated that a

restriction might be reasonable but not necessarily justifiable in a democratic society. He also pointed up that

for a restriction to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, the restriction itself must be reasonable.

It is obvious that the law of sedition, being a restriction to press freedom is highly unreasonably unjustifiable

in the contemporary Nigerian society. In Arthur Nwakwo v. The State, the Court of Appeal, while quashing the

conviction of appellant for publishing seditious materials contrary to Sec. 50(2) 51 and 52 of the Criminal Code,

held these sections to be inconsistent with the constitutional provisions on press freedom. The court even

held that there is no reason why truth should not a defence to a charge of sedition. One of the justices in the

above case held that:

It is my view that the law of sedition, which derogated from the freedom of

speech guaranteed under this constitution (1960) is inconsistent with the 1979

constitution more so when it cannot lead to public disorder envisaged under Sec.

41 (a) of the 1979 Constitution. We are no longer the illiterates of the mob

society our colonial masters had in mind when the law was promulgated.

I humbly associate with the decision of the court in this case. Nigeria has gone beyond the colonial era when

mutual suspicion existed between the colonial administration and the nationalists with regards to acquisition

and the use of political power.

I will therefore end with this argument with the words of Aguda (1983)

It hardly can be doubled that the combined effect of Sec. 50 and 51 of Criminal

Code is to whittle down considerably the freedom of expression and press

guaranteed by the constitution…. the constitution did not guarantee ordered

freedom, but was meant to protect press freedom which is one of the pillars of

democracy.

MEDIA CASES: CHRONICLE OF RECENT CASES OF SEDITION AND FALSE NEWS IN NIGERIA

My argument as to whether I agree that sedition and false news are celebrated media cases in Nigeria will be

premised on some contemporary cases resolved and not resolved) that will be examined below.

GBENGA ARULEBA AND ROTIMI DUROJAIYE AND ORS V. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA

A newspaper reporter (Rotimi Durojaiye, Daily Independent) reported on June 12 in an article titled

“Controversy over age, cost of presidential jet” - a speculation that the plane was a five-year-old retrofit

bought from abroad and previously owned by Lufthansa. This report was then the subject of a TV program

(Focus Nigeria; anchored by Mr. Gbenga Aruleba) on African Independent Television AIT on June 13.

June 14, Aruleba were arrested by Nigeria's State Security Service, and held in detention before being

released the following day. He was asked to report back on a daily basis. June 26, Aruleba was re-arrested –

this time with Durojaiye also arrested; on June 27, they, along with their publishers and employers [the Africa

Independent Television and the Daily Independent Newspapers Limited] were arraigned for sedition. The six-

count charge sheet said their publication showed "intent to bring into hatred or contempt or excite

disaffection against the person of the President or the Government of the Federation".

The two journalists were later granted bail. Both journalists spent several days in jail in connection with the

story.

On October 12, 2006, the Abuja High Court dropped sedition charges against Mike Gbenga Aruleba, a

presenter at African Independent Television (AIT), but retained similar charges against Rotimi Durojaiye of the

Daily Independent newspaper. Charges against Durojaiye were referred to the federal Appeal Court, after the

defense claimed they were unconstitutional.

As it withdrew charges against Aruleba and his news organization, Daar Communications, the prosecution said

the defendants had shown “sufficient remorse,” but prosecutors said the trial against Durojaiye and his news

organization, Independent Newspapers Limited, would continue because they were not “remorseful.”

Both journalists and their organizations, which were named as co-defendants, had pleaded not guilty to the

charges.

The Court of Appeal eventually struck out the case, once again with reference to the case of Arthur Nwankwo

V. The State where the court held that sedition law is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Sec. 36 (1) of

the 1979 Constitution.

IYORCHIA AYU V. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The Federal High Court, on May 20, 2009, presided over by Justice Bello set free former Senate President

Iyorchia Ayu who had been standing trial before the court on charges of sedition. A case of sedition was

preferred against Ayu, Mr. Paul Santos Ofana and Mr. Timi Frank by the erstwhile President Olusegun

Obasanjo administration in the build-up to the 2007 election. Ayu as Director-General of former Vice President

Atiku Abubakar Campaign Organisation for the 2007 presidential poll, Ofana and Frank were said to have

sponsored insurgency in the Niger Delta with the sum of N2.5million.

Ayu, Ofana and Frank had appeared at the court for the case 16 times while the prosecution appeared only

three times. When the matter came up yesterday, the 1st and 3rd accused persons, Ayu and Ofana, were

present in court.

However the 2nd accused, Frank was absent in court as a result of poor health.

A medical report was presented to the court from the National Assembly Clinic, Abuja to that effect. Omar

Shitten, counsel to the accused persons, informed the court that at the last date, 31st March 2009, the

prosecution was absent in court and equally pointed that out of the 16 sittings which had taken place since the

arraignment of the accused persons, the prosecution had only appeared three times. He further informed the

court that he had on several occasions from 2008 visited and spoken with Mr. Barkun who had indicated to

him an unwillingness of the Ministry of Justice to continue with the matter.

After considering all the arguments, the trial judge held that the prosecution had not been diligent in

prosecuting the charge. He consequently discharged the three accused persons. The counsel also prayed the

court to discharge the accused persons for want of diligent prosecution.

In his ruling, Justice Bello discharged the accused and said that the prosecution was not interested in pursuing

the case.

SAM ASOWATA V. THE STATE

On January 28, 2008, a magistrate court in Akwa Ibom State's capital Uyo sent a journalist, Sam Asowata,

chairman of the editorial board of Fresh Facts, a current affairs weekly, to prison on sedition charges in

response to a story alleging corruption by the state governor. The newspaper's distributor was arrested in

relation to the same article on January 24 and the court issued an order on January 25 banning the publication

and circulation of Fresh Facts on the grounds that the paper planned to publish malicious and false

information.

The magistrate court denied bail to Sam Asowata, after the journalist pleaded not guilty to sedition. Asowata

was picked up by armed police in Fresh Facts' office in Abuja.

JOSEF ONOH V. THE STATE

Former member of Enugu State House of Assembly and son of Chief Christian Onoh, late civilian Governor of

old Anambra state, Mr. Josef Onoh, was arrested by policemen from the CID, Enugu State Police Command for

alleged sedition and fraud following a bench warrant issued by an Enugu High Court, for his arrest over the

case of alleged sedition brought against him by a top official of Enugu state government.

Onoh had during the burial of his late father granted a press interview accusing Governor Sullivan Chime of

playing politics with the death of his father and accused the state government of enormous corruption. He had

also threatened to drag Governor Chime before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over

alleged corrupt practices.

An aide to the state Governor, who felt injured by the said comments, gave him one week ultimatum to

retract the allegations, failing which she would sue him for N1 billion and the ultimatum had since expired.

Onoh was detained at the CID, Police Headquarters. Although the charges against him were later dropped, it

goes into record of sedition related cases ever surfaced in Nigeria in recent times.

LEADERSHIP NEWSPAPER GROUP V. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA

LEADERSHIP Weekend published a story in its November 8, 2008 edition on the health condition of the

president. But even before the presidency could comment on the said report, the paper had already

discovered some factual errors to which they published a series of retractions in several press statements. In a

swift reaction, the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of LEADERSHIP Newspapers Group, Mr Sam Nda-Isaiah and

two of the paper's editors, were together with the paper charged to court on the instruction of the president

over allegations of a joint act of defamation of character, injurious falsehood, printing or engraving of matter

known to be defamatory and the sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter.

The court struck out the case on the premise that it could not be sustained owing to the fact that the

President cannot be sued based on his immunity; neither can he sue any individual. Even if the government

must sue any individual, it must be in a criminal matter.

CONCLUSION

Having x-rayed some of the recent sedition cases in Nigeria, most of which affect journalists in the course of

discharging the duty they owe the Nigerian community and the various courts’ interpretation and judgments,

it is evident that the sedition law ought not remain in our statute books.

Here in Nigeria, both military and civilian authorities have always found cause to use the law to repress the

media, oftentimes under the guise of protecting national security. The strongest protection against such

repression has been provided by the courts of law, which have ruled that sedition is unconstitutional, and that

the people have the right to criticize government, point out its errors, and defend the people's right to know.

In the case between Gbenga Aruleba, Rotimi Durojaiye and ors v. Federal Government, consequent upon the

arrests and trial of the journalists, the government then became the institution on trial and not the journalists,

at least in the court of public opinion, given the manner in which the case united civil society against the

Obasanjo government. Newspaper houses repeated the offence by publishing the details of the so- called

offensive story to show their solidarity towards their professional colleagues. This case and several others

drew the attention of several local and foreign rights groups including the Committee to Protect Journalists

(CPJ).

In December 2009, CPJ wrote to President Umaru Yar'Adua asking him to end impunity for abuses against the

media when it heard the report of the arrest, detention and imprisonment of Sam Asowata. The group called

on the prosecution to drop these criminal charges against and release him immediately.

There is hardly a sedition and false news case in Nigeria that does not attract public and media condemnation,

even the most recent, just last week issue Lagos (Nigeria) The Office of the Nigerian Presidency has vowed to

take legal action against NEXT newspaper, if it fails to apologize and retract a 'false' allegation against

President Goodluck Jonathan when the newspaper published to the effect that Jonathan had voted four times

in the Edo State Governorship election of 2007.

Special Adviser to the President, Ima Niboro, claimed it has become evident that Next newspaper and its

publishers are deliberately waging a malicious campaign of falsehood and calumny aimed at demeaning

President Jonathan and inexplicably dragging his integrity in the mud. He noted that he has come to this

conclusion following a series of defamatory and always false reports published against President Jonathan by

Next newspapers. Such reports include the bogus claim that he has engaged over 130 personal aides since

assuming office and the totally untrue report that the president’s children were attending school when other

Nigerian children were asked to stay at home for the recent voters’ registration.

Following this threat by the President, Nigerian public, including The Nation Newspaper and THISDAY

newspaper have lent their voice to the discontent of the threat.

To this end, I rest my case with the words of Reuben Abati. He said

I hereby express my doubt about its retention in our criminal code more so, and

as said earlier, there is adequate provision in the same criminal code for criminal

libel. Let us not diminish from the freedom gained from our colonial masters by

resorting to laws enacted by them to suit their purpose. The decision of the

founding fathers of this present Constitution which guarantees freedom of

speech which must include freedom to criticize should be praised and any

attempt to derogate from it except as provided by the Constitution must be

resisted. Those in public office should not be intolerant of criticism. Where a

writer exceeds the bounds, there should be a resort to the law of libel where the

plaintiff must of necessity put his character and reputation in issue. Criticism is

indispensable in a free society.

It must be noted that the British have since relaxed the application of this law as there has been no

prosecution in Britain under it since 1947. Nigeria's sedition law is the subject of a pending judicial review by

the country's Supreme Court. Human rights defenders have asserted that the law violates constitutional rights

to freedom of expression. Some legal eagles of Nigeria – for example Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), Femi

Falana and others - have stated that the law about sedition in Nigeria is a dead law, and was brought over in

the first instance by the colonial masters. This writer believes that it should stay dead. It must therefore be

expunged from our statute books.

I rest my case.

REFERENCES

Abati, Reuben (2006, July 26) Who Is Afraid Of Sedition? Nigeria Village Square. Retrieved March 10, 2011

from http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/reuben-abati/who-is-afraid-of-sedition-

16.html

Aguda, T.A. (1983).The Judiciary in the Government of Nigeria. Ibadan: Newthorn Press.

Aluko, Mobolaji E. (2006) That "Tokunboh" Plane And Sedition in Nigeria. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from

http://www.dawodu.com/aluko139.htm

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Committee to Protect Journalists(2008, January 29) Nigerian editor charged with sedition, jailed. Committee to

Retrieved March 5, 2011] from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/48243c6523.html

Dominick, Joseph R. (2009) The Dynamics of Mass Communication: Media in the Digital Age. (10th Ed.)New

York, USA: McGraw-Hill Companies

Edike , Tony A. (2009, September 16) Police arrest Onoh’s son for alleged sedition. Vanguard Newspaper.

Retrieved March 12, 2011 from http://www.vanguardngr.com/2009/09/police-arrest-onohs-

son-for-alleged-sedition/

Elias, T.O.S. (1969). Nigerian Press Law. Lagos: Lagos University Press

Muraina, Funso. (2009, May 21) Sedition - Court Frees Iyorchia Ayu. AllAfrica.com. Retrieved March 10, 2011

from http://allafrica.com/stories/200905210109.html

Nwabueze, B.O. (1964) Constitutional Law of the Nigerian Republic. London: Butterworths.

Nwabueze, B.O. (1982).The Presidential Constitution of Nigeria. Enugu:Nwaniye & Hurst.

Omu, Fred.I.A. (1978). Press and Politics in Nigeria 1880 – 1937. Lagos: Longman.