The Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) from enforcing provisions of its recently issued “Formal Notice” perceived as targeting broadcasters and presenters for the expression of opinions.
Justice Daniel Osiagor granted the order of interim injunction on Monday following arguments on an ex parte motion filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE).
The applicants, represented by senior lawyer Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, had approached the court to challenge what they described as an “arbitrary and unlawful attempt” by the NBC to sanction broadcast stations over alleged infractions such as expressing personal opinions as facts, bullying or intimidating guests, or failing to maintain neutrality.
In his ruling, Justice Osiagor ordered that the NBC, its officers, agents, or any affiliated persons be restrained from imposing sanctions, fines, or penalties on broadcast stations based on several contested provisions of the 6th Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.
The court further adjourned the case to June 1, 2026, for hearing of the motion on notice.
The lawsuit filed by SERAP and NGE is seeking a determination of whether the provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code relied upon by the NBC are inconsistent with Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information without interference.
In a joint statement issued on Monday, the organisations welcomed the ruling, describing it as a “landmark decision” and a significant victory for freedom of expression, media independence, and the rule of law.
According to SERAP and NGE, the court’s decision to restrain the NBC from enforcing what they termed vague and overly broad provisions reinforces the principle that regulatory powers must operate within constitutional limits.
They argued that freedom of expression extends beyond factual reporting to include opinions, commentary, and analysis, stressing that journalism without opinion is neither practical nor consistent with democratic values.
The groups also contended that the challenged provisions of the Broadcasting Code lack clarity and legal certainty, thereby granting excessive discretionary powers to regulators and raising concerns about indirect censorship.
They warned that, if left unchecked, the NBC’s actions could have far-reaching implications, particularly as Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections.
SERAP and NGE reiterated their resolve to pursue the case to its logical conclusion, with a view to securing a final judicial pronouncement striking down the contested provisions.
“We will continue to challenge any attempt to weaponise regulation to suppress dissent or control the media. Protecting freedom of expression and media independence is central to advancing transparency, accountability, and human rights in Nigeria,” the statement read.
They also called on the NBC to comply fully with the court’s order and review its regulatory framework to align with constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations.
The organisations further urged Nigerian authorities to create an enabling environment for journalists and media organisations to operate freely, without fear of intimidation, censorship, or reprisals.
“This ruling sends a clear message that freedom of expression is not a privilege to be granted or withdrawn by regulators, but a fundamental right that must be respected and protected at all times,” they added.
In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/854/2026, SERAP and NGE argued that any blanket prohibition on the expression of personal opinions by presenters amounts to censorship and is incompatible with both constitutional and international standards.
They cited Nigeria’s obligations under Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guarantee freedom of expression.
The plaintiffs further maintained that the NBC’s reliance on subjective standards such as “professionalism,” “bullying,” and “neutrality” creates a framework prone to arbitrary enforcement.
They stressed that laws regulating expression must be clear, precise, necessary, and proportionate, warning that anything less could undermine democratic accountability.
According to them, the court’s intervention was necessary to prevent irreparable harm, noting that without the injunction, broadcasters would face immediate threats of sanctions for performing their constitutional role as watchdogs and facilitators of public debate.
They emphasised that a free, independent, and vibrant media remains essential to credible elections and democratic governance, adding that any attempt to stifle critical voices undermines public access to information.
