A Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) from sanctioning broadcasters over alleged breaches relating to expression of opinions, pending the determination of a substantive suit filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE).
Justice Daniel Osiagor granted the order of interim injunction on Monday after hearing an ex parte motion argued by counsel to SERAP and NGE, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN.
The ruling followed a lawsuit challenging what the organisations described as “an arbitrary and unlawful attempt by the NBC to sanction broadcasters for allegedly expressing personal opinions as facts,” “bullying or intimidating guests,” or failing to maintain “neutrality.”
In the certified true copy of the ruling delivered on 4 May 2026, Justice Osiagor held: “It is hereby ordered as follows: That an order of interim injunction is granted restraining the Defendant [NBC], its Officers, agents, privies, assigns, associates or any other person or group of persons from enforcing, imposing sanctions, or levying fines on any broadcasting station based on the provisions of 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 6th Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed simultaneously in this suit.”
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to 1 June 2026 for hearing of the motion on notice.
SERAP and NGE had asked the court “to determine whether the various provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code relied upon by the NBC to threaten broadcasters are inconsistent with the Nigerian Constitution 1999 (as amended) and the country’s international human rights obligations.”
Reacting in a joint statement, the organisations said they “welcome the ruling, which granted an interim injunction restraining the NBC from enforcing controversial provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code used to threaten broadcasters and presenters.”
They added: “This is a significant victory for freedom of expression, media freedom, and the rule of law in Nigeria. The court’s decision to restrain the NBC from enforcing these vague and overly broad provisions affirms the fundamental principle that regulatory powers must be exercised within constitutional limits.”
The groups also urged “the NBC to immediately comply with the court’s order.”
In their originating processes, SERAP and NGE argued: “Unless the reliefs sought are granted, the NBC will continue to use the provisions of the 6th Edition of the Broadcasting Code to threaten and sanction broadcast stations and presenters solely for carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and exercising their rights.”
They further contended that, “The Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law protect both the absolute right to hold opinions and the qualified right to express ideas of all kinds. Journalistic opinion is protected expression.”
According to the suit, “Value judgments are not susceptible of proof and enjoy heightened protection. Journalism necessarily includes analysis and commentary.”
“The right to impart ideas necessarily includes opinions, commentary, and analysis. A blanket prohibition on the expression of ‘personal opinions by anchors and presenters’ amounts to an impermissible restriction of this right.”
“Journalists are entitled to express their opinions as a matter of professional standard, including commentary and analytical expression, which lie at the very core of journalistic practice and democratic discourse.”
The plaintiffs also argued that, “The Nigerian Constitution is the supreme law, and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void. The Nigeria Broadcasting Code, as subsidiary legislation, cannot override constitutional rights or exceed its enabling Act. Provisions that are vague and overly broad unlawfully restrict freedom of expression and must be struck down.”
Citing international obligations, they stated: “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 the human rights treaties to which Nigeria is a state party.”
They added: “The Nigeria Broadcasting Code, as subsidiary legislation, is subject to the Nigerian Constitution and cannot override fundamental rights. Its vague and overly broad provisions grant excessive discretion and undermine freedom of expression. Such impermissible restrictions are unconstitutional and should be struck down.”
Challenging NBC’s justification, the groups argued: “The NBC’s claim of a ‘crisis of anchor and presenter professionalism’ as justification for restrictive measures is legally insufficient and cannot be a permissible ground of derogation from freedom of expression. Any limitation on the rights must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
They further maintained: “The blanket prohibition imposed by Section 1.10.3 of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code, which prohibits presenters from expressing opinions. This amounts to prior restraint that impermissibly excludes commentary, analysis, and value judgments—the core of journalism and democratic discourse.”
“Section 1.10.3 amounts to a form of prior censorship or restraint. Such a blanket restriction fails the legal tests of legality, necessity and proportionality required in a democratic society.”
On enforcement provisions, they argued: “The NBC’s reliance on multiple vague provisions of the Broadcasting Code to classify a wide range of presenter conduct as ‘Class B breaches’ attracting sanctions is contrary to the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law.”
They cited constitutional and regional protections, stating: “Section 39 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 to which Nigeria is a state party guarantee the right to ‘receive and impart ideas and information without interference.’”
They continued: “Under the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law, restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate. The NBC’s reliance on an undefined and subjective standard of ‘professionalism’ introduces vagueness and opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.”
While acknowledging regulatory concerns, the groups said: “While the prohibition of misuse of broadcast platforms by political actors is a legitimate concern, it does not justify sweeping or repressive regulatory measures that infringe on fundamental human rights.”
“Addressing any alleged misuse must be grounded in lawful, precise, necessary, and proportionate responses that respect freedom of expression and editorial independence.”
Raising concerns ahead of upcoming polls, they argued: “Ahead of the 2027 general elections, the NBC’s Formal Notice undermines Nigerians’ democratic rights to receive diverse information, hear competing political viewpoints, and engage in open debate.”
“Rather than curbing misuse, such measures risk entrenching self-censorship, limiting scrutiny of political actors, and weakening the media’s essential role in ensuring transparent, accountable, and credible elections.”
They concluded: “While certain aims such as preventing harassment or ensuring fairness in broadcasting may be legitimate, the provisions as invoked by the NBC are vague, overbroad, and susceptible to arbitrary interpretation.”
“The threat of sanctions for broadly defined conduct creates a chilling effect on journalists and broadcasters, thereby undermining constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.”
... Court Bars NBC from Sanctioning Broadcasters Pending Suit ... Naijaonpoint.