Akakan Umoh
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged President Bola Tinubu to intervene in the controversy surrounding a recent directive issued by the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to broadcast stations, describing it as unlawful and a threat to press freedom.
In a letter dated April 18, 2026, and signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, SERAP urged the President to instruct the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris Malagi, and the NBC to immediately withdraw the “Formal Notice” issued to broadcast stations.
The organisation warned that the directive could undermine journalists’ constitutional rights and restrict free expression.
Also read: Probe ₦5.9b NNPC Rebranding Cost, SERAP Tells Tinubu
The NBC had issued the notice on April 17, citing concerns over declining professionalism in news and political programming and warning that it would enforce strict compliance with the Broadcasting Code.
SERAP argued that the NBC’s notice, which alleged rising breaches of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code and threatened sanctions against broadcasters, represents an attempt to impose prior censorship on the media.
The organisation noted that ahead of the 2027 general elections, the NBC’s Formal Notice undermines Nigerians’ democratic rights to receive diverse information, hear competing political viewpoints, and engage in open debate.
SERAP continued, “The Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law protect both the absolute right to hold opinions and the qualified right to express ideas of all kinds. Journalistic opinion is protected expression.
“Value judgments are not susceptible of proof and enjoy heightened protection. Journalism necessarily includes analysis and commentary.”
The letter, read in part: “We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken within 48 hours of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from your government and the NBC by then, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel compliance with our request in the public interest.
“The blanket prohibition imposed by Section 1.10.3 of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code, which prohibits presenters from expressing opinions. This amounts to prior restraint that impermissibly excludes commentary, analysis, and value judgments—the core of journalism and democratic discourse.
“Section 1.10.3 amounts to a form of prior censorship or restraint. Such a blanket restriction fails the legal tests of legality, necessity and proportionality required in a democratic society.
“The NBC’s reliance on multiple vague provisions of the Broadcasting Code to classify a wide range of presenter conduct as ‘Class B breaches’ attracting sanctions is contrary to the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law.
“Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the right to ‘receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
“The right to impart ideas necessarily includes opinions, commentary, and analysis. A blanket prohibition on the expression of ‘personal opinions by anchors and presenters’ amounts to an impermissible restriction to this right.
“Journalists are entitled to express their opinions as a matter of professional standard, including commentary and analytical expression, which lie at the very core of journalistic practice and democratic discourse.
“The NBC’s claim of a ‘crisis of anchor and presenter professionalism’ as justification for restrictive measures is legally insufficient and cannot be a permissible ground of derogation from freedom of expression. Any limitation on the rights must be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
“Vague and unsubstantiated claims of declining professionalism do not meet this threshold. Under the Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law, restrictions must pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate.
“While the prohibition of misuse of broadcast platforms by political actors is a legitimate concern, it does not justify sweeping or repressive regulatory measures that infringe on fundamental human rights.
“Addressing any alleged misuse must be grounded in lawful, precise, necessary, and proportionate responses that respect freedom of expression and editorial independence.
“Rather than curbing misuse, such measures risk entrenching self-censorship, limiting scrutiny of political actors, and weakening the media’s essential role in ensuring transparent, accountable, and credible elections.
“While certain aims such as preventing harassment or ensuring fairness in broadcasting may be legitimate, the provisions as invoked by the NBC are vague, overbroad, and susceptible to arbitrary interpretation.”
“The threat of sanctions for broadly defined conduct creates a chilling effect on journalists and broadcasters, thereby undermining constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.
“These provisions of the Broadcasting Code are not formulated with sufficient precision to enable individuals regulate their conduct. The imposition of administrative sanctions without adequate procedural safeguards raises fair hearing concerns.
“The NBC’s enforcement posture transforms regulatory oversight into a regime of indirect censorship. While the regulation of misinformation may constitute a legitimate aim, the prohibition on presenters expressing ‘personal opinion as fact’ is framed in vague and overly broad terms that fail the requirement of legal certainty.
“The Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law protect not only factual reporting but also opinions and value judgments, which are not susceptible to proof.
“The absence of clear definitions distinguishing fact from opinion renders the provision prone to arbitrary application, thereby creating a chilling effect on legitimate journalistic expression and debate.
“The notice would also seriously undermine the media’s constitutional role as a public watchdog because any regulation that discourages rigorous questioning undermines this function.
“SERAP believes that the requirement that broadcasters must always provide fair hearing to opposing views, while ostensibly grounded in principles of balance, imposes an impermissible form of compelled speech and editorial control.
“Apart from explicitly undermining editorial independence, such a requirement also suppresses legitimate expression, and disregards the autonomy of journalists and media houses.
“The Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law provide that individuals and entities are entitled to fair hearing before the imposition of penalties. Similarly, sanctions affecting expression must be strictly necessary and proportionate.”
