Worried that “sanity in broadcasting” now hangs in the balance, the National Broadcasting Commission, NBC, has approached the Court of Appeal for permission to lodge a fresh appeal against a Federal High Court judgment that stripped it of the power to impose fines on broadcast stations.
The renewed move comes barely six weeks after the same appellate court, on June 17, 2026, threw out the Commission’s earlier appeal, describing it as “fundamentally defective” and incompetent.
In a motion on notice filed on its behalf by Abuja-based Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Dapo Akinosun, the NBC is praying the Court to extend the time within which it may challenge the January 10, 2024 judgment delivered by Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia.
That judgment was the outcome of a suit filed by Media Rights Agenda, MRA, contesting the NBC’s decision to slam ₦5 million fines each on a terrestrial television station and three pay-TV platforms over documentaries examining the worsening state of banditry and insecurity in Zamfara State — content the commission branded as damaging to Nigeria’s national security.
In her January 2024 ruling, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia held that the ₦5 million penalties imposed on Multichoice Nigeria Limited (owners of DSTV), TelCom Satellite Limited (TSTV), Trust-TV Network Limited and NTA Star Times Limited were unlawful and unconstitutional. The judge reasoned that the NBC, not being a court of law, lacked the authority to unilaterally impose monetary sanctions on broadcasters — a decision widely welcomed by media freedom advocates as a check on regulatory overreach in Nigeria’s broadcast sector.
The four affected outlets had run programmes documenting the humanitarian and security crisis in Zamfara State, a state hit by armed banditry in Nigeria’s North-West. The Commission argued at the time that the broadcasts amplified insecurity and could trigger panic; MRA countered that the fines amounted to the punishment of journalism in the public interest.
The NBC’s initial appeal against the judgment was struck out by the Court of Appeal on June 17, 2026, on a technicality that has since drawn commentary within legal circles: the Notice of Appeal and accompanying briefs referred to the appellant as the “Nigerian Broadcasting Commission” — a body that does not legally exist — rather than the “National Broadcasting Commission,” the entity established by the National Broadcasting Commission Act. The appellate court held the misdescription rendered the entire process fundamentally defective and incompetent.
In its fresh motion, the Commission pleads that the error was “an inadvertent misdescription” of its statutory name traceable solely to its lawyers and should not shut it out of ventilating substantive constitutional questions on the merits.
Grounds Advanced by the Commission
Outlining its case for a second bite at the appellate cherry, the NBC insists that “sanity in broadcasting is threatened” and that granting its application will serve the wider public interest.
The Commission argues that the disputed judgment “raises questions of exceptional public importance concerning the statutory powers of the National Broadcasting Commission to regulate broadcasting and enforce compliance with broadcasting standards in Nigeria.” Unless, it adds, “the proposed appeal is heard and determined on its merits, the subsisting judgment is capable of creating significant uncertainty regarding the Commission’s regulatory powers and its ability to effectively discharge its statutory mandate.”
Left undisturbed, the NBC contends, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia’s decision could weaken the regulatory framework that governs the broadcasting industry; undermine uniform enforcement of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code; and “embolden non-compliance with established broadcasting standards, thereby increasing the dissemination of false, misleading and unverified information capable of causing unnecessary public anxiety, panic and social unrest.”
The Commission goes further, warning that the “absence of effective regulatory oversight may further encourage irresponsible broadcasting practices and the misuse of broadcast and digital media platforms by persons who deliberately publish sensational, inaccurate or inflammatory content to intimidate, harass or unduly influence individuals, institutions and public discourse.”
The proposed appeal, it submits, “raises substantial issues affecting not only the parties to the suit but also the integrity, stability, and orderly regulation of Nigeria’s broadcasting ecosystem, with far-reaching implications for broadcasters, content creators, consumers of media content and the general public.”
Beyond seeking to reopen the substantive question of its powers, the Commission is asking the Court of Appeal to grant it leave to raise and argue an entirely new issue — one it did not press in its aborted first appeal — challenging the legal capacity of Media Rights Agenda to institute and maintain the original suit at the Federal High Court. If entertained, that ground could reopen debate over the standing of civil society organisations to litigate broadcasting-regulation matters on behalf of the public.
To dispel any impression of tardiness, the NBC recounts that following the January 10, 2024 judgment, it “promptly instructed its lawyers to appeal” and that a Notice of Appeal was duly filed on March 18, 2024 — well within the statutory window. That earlier filing, it argues, is proof of its “diligence and unequivocal intention to challenge the judgment.” Its predicament, the Commission stresses, arose not from delay but from the misnaming defect that has now been cured.
Broader Context
The case is one of a lengthening string of confrontations between Nigeria’s broadcast regulator and both broadcasters and civil society over the reach of its enforcement powers. In recent years the NBC has repeatedly wielded the fine as its primary compliance tool — sanctioning stations over political coverage, protest reporting and, as in this case, security-related documentaries — while media rights groups have argued that only a court, not the regulator, can lawfully impose such penalties.
The Federal High Court’s 2024 ruling was, in effect, a judicial line in the sand on that question, and its survival on appeal would markedly reshape the balance between regulator and licensee.
No date has yet been fixed for the hearing of the motion.
Crediblenewsg.com
