TheCable

The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) has filed a suit against the judgment of a federal court barring the agency from imposing fines on broadcast stations.

The NBC filed the suit at the court of appeal in Abuja.

In the four-point ground of appeal, NBC argued that James Omotosho, the presiding judge at the federal high court,  Abuja, erred when he declined to dismiss order barring the agency from imposing fines on broadcast stations.

THE COURT CASE

In May 2023, a federal high court in Abuja ruled that NBC does not have the power to impose penalties on broadcast stations.

Omotosho set aside fines imposed on 45 broadcast stations by NBC.

On March 1, 2019, NBC sanctioned 45 broadcast stations over alleged ethical infractions during the general election.

Is’haq Kawu, then director-general of the commission, said the affected media houses were fined N500,000 each for flouting the provisions of the Nigerian broadcasting code.

Among the affected stations were Channels Television, TVC, AIT, and NTA.

Displeased with the fines, the Media Rights Agenda (MRA) sued NBC, stating that the action of the commission violated the right to a fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 constitution (as amended) and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

MRA had asked the court to declare the fines unconstitutional and null.

In July 2023, NBC asked the court to dismiss the order while arguing that the court reached its decision in “ignorance of relevant facts”.

NBC also claimed that MRA has “two un-appealed, subsisting and binding decisions of the federal high court on the same issues and parties”.

The commission added that the media group brought a fresh suit before the court, instead of appealing previous rulings.

In November 2023, Omotosho dismissed the motion filed by NBC seeking to set aside the verdict.

Omotosho ruled that available evidence showed that the commission was served but failed to appear before the court.

The judge said NBC failed to present facts that the suit filed by the media group was an abuse of the court process.

THE APPEAL

In a statement on Thursday, Idowu Adewale, the communication officer of MRA, said the commission told the appeal court that the lower court failed to consider that the order was “deceitfully obtained”.

“The second ground of appeal is that the judge erred in law when he held that he would not set aside his earlier judgment because “res judicata” was not a ground for settling aside a default judgment,” the statement reads.

“In its particulars of error, the NBC said the judge overlooked the fact that res judicata is an objection that goes to the root of the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a subsequent claim that has been previously adjudicated between the same parties and that res judicata is a jurisdictional ground on which an application to set aside a default judgment can be founded upon.

“The NBC’s third ground of appeal is that the judge erred in law when he held that “In the final analysis, the application by the Respondent/Applicant (NBC) has no substance for being an afterthought and a belated attempt at challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

“This court is functus officio in this matter and therefore refuses the application of the respondent/applicant.

“In its particulars of error, the NBC claimed that the judge’s decision negated his earlier finding in the same ruling that the principle that a court is functus officio and thus precluded from reviewing its earlier ruling is not absolute and allows exceptions, adding that the judge conceded that a ruling could be set aside on grounds of fraud, deceit, and abuse of court process.

“It also alleged that the judge conceded the presence of the features of abuse of court process by MRA and ought to have set aside the ruling.

“In its fourth ground of appeal, NBC said the judge erred in law when he found that a party who is the victim of a default judgment fraudulently obtained would not be entitled to the indulgence of a court of law if it applies to set aside the judgment belatedly without having taken the opportunity of appearing to raise those issues in its defence to the substantive claim.”