By Ayo Kehinde
The Nigerian Guild of Editors and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project have filed a lawsuit against the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) over “the arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unlawful ‘Formal Notice’, which threatens to sanction broadcast stations and presenters for allegedly ‘expressing personal opinions as facts, bullying or intimidating guests, or failing to maintain neutrality,’” warning in the suit that such measures are vague, overbroad and capable of creating “a chilling effect on journalists and broadcasters,” while undermining “the media’s essential role in ensuring transparent, accountable, and credible elections.”
Filed at the Federal High Court, Lagos, and marked FHC/L/CS/854/2026, the suit seeks judicial interpretation of whether the provisions of the 6th Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code relied upon by the NBC are consistent with the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights law.
The NBC had, in its directive, claimed it had “identified a sustained increase in breaches of the 6th Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code across news, current affairs, and political programmes,” and warned that sanctions would be imposed on stations and presenters who “express personal opinions as facts,” “bully or intimidate guests,” or fail to maintain neutrality.
However, SERAP and NGE argued that the provisions cited by the commission are “vague and overly broad,” and “not formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals to regulate their conduct,” thereby granting the NBC excessive discretion and opening the door to arbitrary enforcement.
According to the plaintiffs, “the Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law, and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void,” stressing that the Broadcasting Code, as subsidiary legislation, “cannot override constitutional rights or exceed its enabling Act.” They added that “provisions that are vague and overly broad unlawfully restrict freedom of expression and must be struck down.”
The organisations, represented by a legal team led by Femi Falana (SAN), argued that “value judgments are not susceptible to proof and enjoy heightened protection,” emphasising that “journalism necessarily includes analysis and commentary.”
They further stated that “the right to impart ideas necessarily includes opinions, commentary, and analysis,” warning that “a blanket prohibition on the expression of ‘personal opinions by anchors and presenters’ amounts to an impermissible restriction to this right.”
The suit specifically challenges Sections 1.10.3, 3.3.1(b), 3.4.1(b), 5.3.3(b), 3.1.1, 3.11.1(a), 5.4.1(f), 3.11.1(b), and 5.5.1(b) of the Broadcasting Code, which the plaintiffs argue are “overbroad, vague and fail to provide citizens and broadcasting stations with sufficient notice of what constitutes a breach,” and are therefore “unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.”
SERAP and NGE also anchored their arguments on international law, noting that “under Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform international treaties,” including human rights obligations binding on Nigeria.
They argued that “under the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law, restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate,” adding that the NBC’s reliance on “an undefined and subjective standard of ‘professionalism’ introduces vagueness and opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.”
On sanctions, the plaintiffs contended that the classification of alleged infractions as “Class B breaches,” attracting fines or suspension, constitutes “a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression” and raises “serious due process and fair hearing concerns.”
They also challenged NBC’s prohibition of “bullying or intimidation,” arguing that the terms lack “clear and objective criteria,” and risk capturing “critical or adversarial questioning, which is an essential feature of investigative journalism and democratic discourse.”
Similarly, the requirement that broadcasters must provide “fair hearing to opposing views” was described as “an impermissible form of compelled speech and editorial control,” which “suppresses legitimate expression and disregards the autonomy of journalists and media houses,” particularly in commentary and opinion-based programmes.
The plaintiffs warned that NBC’s enforcement posture “transforms regulatory oversight into a regime of indirect censorship,” stressing that the prohibition on presenters expressing “personal opinion as fact” is “framed in vague and overly broad terms that fail the requirement of legal certainty.”
They further argued that “the absence of clear definitions distinguishing fact from opinion renders the provision prone to arbitrary application,” thereby creating “a chilling effect on legitimate journalistic expression and debate.”
Looking ahead to the 2027 general elections, SERAP and NGE cautioned that the NBC’s directive “undermines Nigerians’ democratic rights to receive diverse information, hear competing political viewpoints, and engage in open debate,” warning that it risks “entrenching self-censorship, limiting scrutiny of political actors, and weakening the media’s essential role.”
Among the reliefs sought, the plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the disputed provisions unconstitutional; nullify and set them aside for breaching fundamental rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and access to information; and grant a perpetual injunction restraining the NBC and its agents from enforcing or imposing sanctions based on those provisions.
They are also seeking an interim injunction restraining the commission from taking enforcement action pending the determination of the suit, arguing that unless the court intervenes, the NBC will continue to threaten and sanction broadcasters “solely for carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and exercising their rights.”
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the interim application or the substantive suit.
