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Indeed, the federal government is using outdated criminal charges to suppress a story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.