Chzrles NatThe outrage over the National Broadcasting Commission’s recent reminder to broadcasters is, in many respects, misplaced. The NBC did not wake up to invent a fresh code of conduct for journalists or smuggle new restrictions into the media space.
It merely restated obligations that already exist within Nigeria’s broadcasting regulatory framework. The Commission itself is the statutory regulator of broadcast media in Nigeria, established to license stations, enforce compliance with the Nigeria Broadcasting Code, monitor harmful or misleading content, and uphold ethical standards in broadcasting. In other words, reminding broadcasters about rules that are already in force is not regulatory aggression; it is the very essence of regulation.
This is especially so as the country moves toward the 2027 general elections, a period in which inflammatory rhetoric, misinformation, unverified claims and partisan manipulation can do grave damage to public order and democratic legitimacy.
According to reports on the NBC notice, the Commission said it had observed a “disturbing departure from the core principles of broadcast journalism,” including cases where anchors allegedly expressed personal opinion as fact, bullied or intimidated guests, or denied fair hearing to opposing views. If that is the concern, then the NBC was not overreaching; it was acting before misconduct becomes normalized on air.
Those who argue that the Commission’s position is anti-press freedom should first reckon with the actual text of the Code. The Nigeria Broadcasting Code has long required fairness and balance in the treatment of issues of public interest. It provides that all sides to an issue of public importance should be equitably presented, guarantees a right of reply to anyone genuinely misrepresented, says a broadcaster shall not deny access to those with contrary views, and requires fairness and balance in programmes devoted to matters of public interest. In political broadcasting, it also emphasizes pluralism and equal airtime. A reminder that these duties exist cannot honestly be described as a new assault on journalism.
Also Read: NBC appeals case against imposition of fines on broadcast stations
The same Code also prohibits content that encourages crime, public disorder or hate, forbids hate speech, disallows programmes that may incite violence or social upheaval, and bars divisive materials that threaten the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria as a sovereign state. These are not ornamental clauses.
They reflect the peculiar power of broadcasting in a fragile democracy: radio and television can inform, but they can also inflame. In an election season, the regulator would have been negligent if it kept quiet while standards slipped.
The argument becomes even stronger in today’s media environment, where live programming, clips from social media, and user-generated material can circulate falsehoods at dangerous speed. The amended addendum to the Code requires broadcasters to verify unconventional or user-generated materials, prohibits fake news, insists on editorial responsibility, and makes broadcasters liable for breaches arising from such content.
It also states that online and web broadcasting content must conform to the Code, especially on hate speech and fake news. So, when the NBC says editorial responsibility rests with broadcasters and cannot be transferred to guests or live programming, it is not speaking outside the law; it is reiterating it.
To be clear, the concerns raised by the Media Rights Agenda and the Nigerian Guild of Editors are not entirely frivolous. Vague language in regulation can invite abuse, and every democracy must guard against the use of ethics rules as a cover for silencing dissent.
But that is a different argument from saying the NBC had no business reminding broadcasters of the Code. One may disagree with a provision, fear its misuse, or call for clarification. None of that changes the fact that the provisions remain part of the extant regulatory regime until they are amended or struck down by a competent court.
There is also a basic distinction that should not be blurred: asking tough questions is different from turning an interview into a personal crusade; vigorous interrogation is different from intimidation; analysis is different from passing off opinion as fact.
Journalism must be fearless, yes, but it must also be fair. Broadcast presenters are not political actors, partisan surrogates or courtroom prosecutors. They hold a privileged position on a licensed public platform and must therefore meet standards that preserve public trust. That is not cowardice. That is professionalism. But any broadcaster who feels strongly about political issues should drop the microphone and go obtain a party card!
In the end, this should be a rule-of-law question. If any broadcaster, media association or civil society group believes that any part of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code is unconstitutional, vague, overbroad or inconsistent with freedom of expression, the proper remedy is not outrage in press statements alone.
The proper remedy is to go to court and challenge the offending provision. That is how constitutional democracies resolve disputes over regulatory power. Until such a challenge succeeds, however, the law and the Code remain binding on licensed broadcasters, and the NBC is entirely within its mandate to remind them of that fact and to enforce compliance where necessary.
So, the real issue is not whether the NBC has the right to remind broadcasters about extant rules. It plainly does. The real issue is whether broadcasters are willing to accept that with the immense power of the airwaves comes an equally weighty legal and ethical responsibility. On that question, the Commission deserves support, not vilification.
Crediblenewsng.com
