Media Rights Agenda (MRA) today secured another legal victory against the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) in the Commission’s efforts to set aside a Federal High Court’s judgment perpetually restraining it from imposing fines on radio and television stations. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal in Abuja struck out the NBC’s Notice of Appeal, describing it as “fundamentally defective” and incompetent.
In a lead judgment delivered by Justice Jane Esienanwan Inyang, the Court raised a preliminary issue on the identity of the parties in the matter, noting that the parties before the Federal High Court were described as Incorporated Trustees of Media Rights Agenda (as Applicant) and National Broadcasting Commission (as Respondent) while in the Notice of Appeal filed by the NBC, the purported Appellant was described as Nigerian Broadcasting Commission.
Saying the Court considered the discrepancy significant, Justice Inyang described it as a fundamental defect affecting the competence of the appeal, as a result of which the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Commission’s appeal.
The appeal arose from a judgment delivered on January 17, 2024 by Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia in a suit instituted by Media Rights Agenda (MRA) on September 2, 2022, over the Commission’s imposition of fines of N5 million each on a television station and three pay TV platforms on August 3, 2022 for allegedly undermining Nigeria’s national security by broadcasting documentaries about the state of banditry and insecurity in Zamfara State.
In her judgment, Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia held that the NBC’s act of imposing fines of ₦5 million each on Multichoice Nigeria Limited, owners of DSTV; TelCom Satellite Limited (TSTV); Trust-TV Network Limited; and NTA Startimes Limited, was unlawful and unconstitutional, and constituted a violation of the rights of MRA, its members, and other citizens of Nigeria to freedom of expression, particularly their rights to receive ideas and information without interference, as guaranteed by Section 39 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
At the hearing of arguments in the NBC’s appeal on March 25, 2026, the Commission was represented by MMrBashir Ramoni, a partner and Head of Litigations in the law firm of SimmonsCooper Partners, leading MMrJohn Ojelabi and Ms Rosecarmel Odeh, while Mr Ezenwa Anumnu, a Senior Partner at Joint Heirs Chambers, leading Mr.Y. Danladi, appeared on behalf of MRA.
Delivering the court’s verdict in the appeal today, Justice Inyang noted that the Notice of Appeal is the foundation or substratum of an appeal and that a competent Notice of Appeal is a condition precedent to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the court, adding that where the Notice of Appeal is fundamentally defective, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
She stressed that the appeal before it was not initiated by the same legal entity that was a party before the Federal High Court and held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the court by consent of the parties, a waiver, acquiescence, or participation of the parties.
Justice Inyang ruled that the “Notice of Appeal and the accompanying briefs are fundamentally defective and do not and cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine the appeal,” adding that the defect in the Notice of Appeal has robbed the court of jurisdiction to determine the appeal.
She held that as a result of the defective Notice of Appeal, there was “no appeal in fact and in law before this Court” and accordingly struck it out for incompetence.
The same Court of Appeal had on April 2, 2026 dismissed an earlier appeal by the NBC seeking to overturn the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho on May 10, 2023, in which he ruled that fines are sanctions imposed on a person who has been found guilty of a criminal offence and that under the law in Nigeria, only courts of law are empowered to impose sanctions for criminal offences. On November 23, 2023, the judge also dismissed NBC’s July 2023 motion to set aside the judgment.
