Saturday, November 24, 2012

Newspaper owners get court's nod to challenge APCON's control of print adverts

Nduka

BODY of owners of print media organisations, the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN), yesterday, urged a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) against a suit it instituted, challenging the power of the advertising body to regulate the content of print publications in the country.

NPAN, through its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), also asked the court presided over by Justice Musa Kurya, to assume jurisdiction over the suit by holding that it is competent to hear the matter because NPAN has "sufficient interest" to institute the suit on behalf of its members.

Oyetibo further argued that NPAN has the singular mandate of protecting the interests of its members, who are owners of media houses and whose interests are being "adversely affected" by APCON's "unconstitutional regulations."

The lawyer maintained that contrary to APCON's argument, the suit is not to fight for the employees of media houses, allegedly, being harrassed by APCON and the police. Rather it was instituted to challenge the power of APCON to "control newspapers."

His submission: "We have sufficient interest in the matter 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."

In his reply, APCON's counsel, Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN), 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 stated 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 that employed them as their own platforms.

Mr. Idigbe said: "We submit that there is no controversy between us and the plaintiff.

"Those employees should be the ones before court, defending themselves."

The court had earlier overruled a lawyer in the chambers of Idigbe, Mr O. Kalu who was leading the defence team until Idigbe arrived the court, had insisted that Oyetibo had no right to be heard by the court for defaulting to pay a N20,000 cost awarded against the plaintiff and its counsel because of their absence on the first day the case came up for mention on November 8, 2012.

But Justice Kurya overruled, ordering that the money be paid to the defendant's counsel on or before the next adjourned date, he said denying Oyetibo the opportunity to address the court for defaulting to pay the cost would trample his right to fair hearing.

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

The matter was adjourned till December 13 for ruling.

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 which seeks to vet the advertisement of media houses violate superior provisions of Sections 34 and 4(1) of the Constitution.

The plaintiff also argued that the articles violate the fundamental right of 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.
The Compass

No comments: