Headline

Communication Scholar Describes NBC Code As Undemocratic, Calls For Its Urgent Review

Published

4 years ago

November 13, 2021

Editor

Former head of the Department of Mass Communication, University of Lagos, Professor Ralph Akinfeleye, has called for an urgent review of the National Broadcasting Code, describing the extant edition, issued last year by the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), as inconsistent with democracy.

The renowned communication scholar, made the call yesterday at the public presentation of “Question Marks on the 6th NBC Code Amendments”, a publication by Consortium of Independent Broadcasters and Free Press Advocates.

At the event, which held at the Lagos office of the Independent Press Centre (IPC), Akinfeleye stated that the code is an attempt by the government to over-regulate the broadcast space, adding that many of the provisions in the 6th NBC Code are unnecessary as they had already been addressed by previous laws.

“The first thing is that we have existing laws that address the concerns of the NBC. The NBC is trying to over-regulate the media in a way that is inconsistent with democracy, which is oiled by free press. A free press is required to make the government accountable at all times, not sometimes. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a revision of the NBC Code,” he said.

The publication, co-edited by Lanre Arogundade, IPC’s Executive Director; and Dr. Akintunde Akanni, acting head of the Mass Communication Department of the Lagos State University, described the NBC Code as a change from regulation to strangulation. Arogundade noted that the Code contains provisions that could undermine democratic norms and standards and jeopardise the values of broadcast sector liberalisation as well as free enterprise.

“Consider the fact Section 2.127.2 of the Code seeks to confer arbitrary powers on the NBC to, among others, shut down a station for violating the provisions relating to web/online broadcasting without making any provision for stations that may be concerned to seek redress,” he said.

He also identified Section 5.6.1 as dangerous. The section, he noted, prohibits the use of user generated content (UGC) that may “embarrass individuals, organizations, and the government.” Arogundade warned that the section is capable of limiting citizen’s input into media content.

“By including the government among those that should not be embarrassed, the provision is capable of intimidating the media while encouraging public officials to dodge the responsibility of accountability since they can always resort to the claim of being embarrassed.

“In other words, the provision is capable of undermining the obligation imposed on the media by Section 22 of the Constitution to monitor governance and hold government accountable to the people and therefore should be expunged,” he contended.

He similarly stated that Section 5.6.5, which requires a broadcaster to identify the source of UGC, will constitute an erosion of the privileges conferred on the media to protect sources that wish to be anonymous, branding it a violation of Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act.

VANGUARD reports that the media rights activist equally slated the provision of the code that seeks to compel broadcast rights holders to sub-license their content to competitors, saying it has the potential of discouraging investment in the sector.

Up Next

How To Activate Facebook Protect Security Feature (Secure Your Account From Hackers)

Don't Miss

Nigerian Senate Exonerates Finance Ministry Of Withholding Funds From MDAs

Comments

Headline

US Opposes Palestinian State Recognition, Says It’s Reward For Hamas

Published

4 hours ago

September 24, 2025

Editor

United States President Donald Trump and his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, met on Tuesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, where they discussed differing views on the future of Gaza and Palestinian statehood.

CNN reports that Trump rejected the two-state solution to the crisis in Gaza, saying the idea portrays “reward” for Hamas.

France recently joined the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Portugal to officially recognise the Palestinian state.

Trump opened the Tuesday bilateral meeting by praising Macron’s diplomatic efforts, claiming the French leader had helped him prevent global conflicts.

“Emmanuel has actually helped me with a couple of the wars,” Trump said, in response to Macron’s recent remark that if the US president wants a Nobel Peace Prize, he should “put an end to the war in Gaza.”

When asked about Palestinian statehood, and his latest remarks, it would be a “gift to Hamas,” Trump again pushed back strongly.

“Well, I think it honors Hamas, and you can’t do that because of October 7. You can’t do that. But we want our hostages back,” Trump said.

“You always have to remember, people forget October 7 was one of the most savage days in the history of the world,” the US president said.

In response, Macron, seated beside Trump, emphasised that recognising a Palestinian state does not mean ignoring Hamas’ October 2023 attacks on Israel.

The Gaza war is an armed conflict in the Gaza Strip and Israel, fought since October 7, 2023, when the Hamas militant group attacked Israel, which has since launched offensive in the Gaza Strip in retaliation.

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

18 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

2 days ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP