Guardian

JUSTICE Musa Kurya of Federal High Court, Lagos Thursday upheld the preliminary objection filed by the Advertisers Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) challenging the suitability and the jurisdiction of the court to hear a suit questioning its powers to regulate the activities of media employees.

The substantial suit was instituted by NPAN who contended that the powers of APCON as captured in Articles 21 and 137(a) of the Nigerian Code of Advertising Practice and Sales Promotion seeking to vet the advertisement of media houses violate superior provisions of Sections 34 and 4(1) of the constitution.

The plaintiff also added that the Articles violate the freedom of expression, comprising “freedom to hold opinion, and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference” as guaranteed under Section 39 of the Constitution.

But the judge ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore dismissed the suit.

“The plaintiff failed to bring this action properly. The respondents applicants objection succeeds. The court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action and it is hereby dismissed”, he ruled, adding that the action should not have come in a representative capacity without obtaining leave of court.

NPAN had insisted that (APCON) has no powers to regulate the activities of its members praying the court to uphold the competence of its suit challenging APCON’s action.

Counsel to NPAN, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, (SAN), had while opposing APCON’s preliminary objection to the suit, urged the court to dismiss the objection.

Oyetibo had urged the court to assume jurisdiction over the suit by holding that it is competent on the basis that NPAN has “sufficient interest” to institute the suit on behalf of its members.

According to him: NPAN has a singular mandate of protecting the interests of its members, who are owners of media houses whose interests are being “adversely affected” by APCON’s  “unconstitutional regulations”. He said contrary to APCON’s argument, the suit is not to fight for the employees of media houses being allegedly harrassed by APCON and the police, but that it was instituted to challenge the power of APCON to “control newspapers”.

Oyetibo said: “We have sufficient interest in the matter which we have brought before your Lordship. This is a case being fought on behalf of its members. “Articles 21 and 137 (a) of the Nigerian Code of Advertising Practice and Sales Promotion expressly mentioned media houses and media houses are the targets of the provisions. “The case of the plaintiff is not the defence of employees that were harassed. The peak and substance of our case is the constitutionality of the two Articles of the Code. “I urge Your Lordship to hold that the plaintiff has locus standi and dismiss the objection of the first defendant (APCON).” However, APCON’s counsel, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) in replying on point of law, asked the court to grant his application and dismiss the suit on the grounds that NPAN lacks “legal competence” to institute the suit.

Idigbe argued that NPAN lacks locus standi to institute the suit because the Code being challenged by it was enacted to regulate the activities of advertising practitioners who are employees of the media houses. According to him, the relationship between APCON and advertising practitioners is like the one, which exists between the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN) and bankers. He said advertising practitioners are only using the media houses as the platform for their work just like bankers, who are being regulated by CIBN, use various banks which employed them as their own platforms.

Idigbe said: “We submit that there is no controversy between us and the plaintiff. Those employees should defend themselves.”

However, the Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar, who is the second defendant in the suit failed to enter any legal appearance within 30 days of being served the papers of the suit.

NPAN had sued APCON contending that the powers of APCON as captured in Articles 21 and 137(a) of the Nigerian Code of Advertising Practice and Sales Promotion seeking to vet the advertisement of media houses violate superior provisions of Sections 34 and 4(1) of the constitution. The plaintiff also says the Articles violate the freedom of expression, comprising “freedom to hold opinion, and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference” as guaranteed under Section 39 of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, counsel to NPAN has indicated their interest to appeal against the ruling immediately.