Connect with us

News

Court Declines MultiChoice’s Plea To Stop NBC From Auditing Company’s Account

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, refused to grant an application filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd, seeking an interim order restraining the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) from requesting any financial, accounting, or tax documents from them.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling on the ex-parte motion moved by the applicant’s counsel, Moyosore Onigbanjo, SAN, rather directed all parties, in the interest of justice, not to take any step that could make the outcome of the suit nugatory.

Although the ruling was delivered on Wednesday, its certified true copy was sighted on Friday.

Advertisement

People Talk: On sale of new Naira notes at Nigerian parties0:00 / 1:00
The ex-parte order for Interim Injunction dated 8th day of May 2024 and filed 16th day of May, 2024 is hereby refused,” he declared.

Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter until May 30 for a hearing of the motion on notice.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that MultiChoice Nigeria Limited and Details Nigeria Limited, a provider of the subscription-based digital terrestrial television service, known as GOtv, are 1st and 2nd applicants.

Advertisement

READ ALSO: DSTV Hike: Lawyer To Paste Restraining Order At MultiChoice Office

In the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/652/2024 dated May 8 and filed May 16 by their lawyer, they sued NBC as sole respondent.

The applicants sought three reliefs, including an order of interim injunction, restraining NBC from carrying out any investigations of the companies for the purposes of determining their annual income or NBC levy for the years between 2014 and 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Advertisement

They sought an order of interim injunction restraining the NBC from requesting, demanding and or receiving any financial, accounting or tax documents from the companies other than the annual audited accounts of the companies already submitted to the commission.

They said this was in pursuant to Section 2 (10) (b) of the NBC Code 6th Edition for the purposes of determining her remittance of NBC levy for the 2014 to 2024 years of account pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

They equally prayed an order of interim injunction restraining the commission from sanctioning, fining or suspending the companies’ license pursuant to the threats contained in its letter dated April 29 to them, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Advertisement

In the affidavit deposed to by the companies’ Head of Compliance, Gozie Onumonu, he averred that the firms were mandated under the various NBC Codes to pay a certain percentage of their income as annual NBC levy to the respondent.

READ ALSO: Google To Link Africa, Australia With Landmark Umoja Cable

He said that the current code; NBC Code 6th Edition, provides for 2.5% of the income of a broadcaster to be paid to the respondent yearly as annual NBC levy while the erstwhile code which was amended in 2019 provides for 1.5% of the income of a broadcaster to be paid to the defendant yearly as annual levy.

Advertisement

He claimed that the companies had never defaulted in paying their annual levy to the commission.

“Income as provided by the NBC Code 6th Edition is not defined neither is it defined in any other previous editions nor in the NBC Act 2004.

“As a result of the lack of definition of what an income is, there was a dispute between the applicants and the respondent in the year 2014 whether income should be turnover or revenue minus cost of production.

Advertisement

“After due negotiations, meetings, etc., between the applicants and the respondent, it was agreed by the applicants and respondent that income should be revenue minus cost of production.

“In the year 2014, when the applicants subtracted the cost of production from their revenue in order to arrive at the then 1.5 per cent required of the applicants under the NBC Code 5th Edition, what was left for the applicants to pay to the defendant in compliance with the 1.5% requirement of the NBC Code 5th Edition was negligible.

READ ALSO: DSTV Hike: Lawyer To Paste Restraining Order At MultiChoice Office

Advertisement

“The amount the respondent would have been entitled to, from the applicants as annual NBC levy between 2014 to 2019 if the applicants were to strictly pay the 1.5% annual NBC levy provided by the 5th Edition of the Code was small and the respondent might not be able to carry out its administrative functions in view of its financial needs.

“Specifically, in the year 2014 and 2015, the amount that would have been due to the defendant as 1.5% of the annual income of the 1st applicant was N2.1 million (N2,167,254)

“As a result, the respondent beseeched the applicants to consent to the payment of a fixed sum of N500 million (N500,000,000) as annual levy for the applicants’ licence period of 2014 to 2019 the sum of which was far more than what the plaintiffs were supposed to be paying to the respondent if the applicants were to pay only the 1.5 per cent of their annual income as provided by the NBC Code.

Advertisement

“For the years 2014 to 2019 that the respondent wants to carry out the investigation to verify whether the applicants paid up to 2.5% of their annual incomes as annual NBC levy, the operational NBC Code then was the NBC Code, 5th Edition and it requires broadcaster to pay 1.5% of their annual incomes as annual levy,” he said.

Onumonu, who said the companies had already submitted a certified true copy of their audited account for the previous year(s) to NBC, said the commission was paid over N12 billion (N12, 490, 000, 0000) as annual levy from 2014 to date.

The officer described NBC’s action as an abuse of power, urging the court to grant their plea in the interest of justice.
VANGUARD

Advertisement

News

Xenophobic Attacks: Oshiomhole Tells FG To Retaliate Against South African Companies In Nigeria

Published

on

By

Senator Adams Oshiomhole has called on the Federal Government to retaliate against South African businesses operating in Nigeria following the recent attacks on Nigerians in South Africa.

Speaking during plenary on Tuesday, Oshiomhole said the Federal Government should consider revoking the working license of South African owned companies such as MTN and DSTV.

He argued that Nigeria must respond firmly to what he described as persistent hostility against its citizens.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:South Africa To Investigate ‘Mystery’ Of Planeload Of Palestinians

“I am not going to shed tears. If you hit me, I hit you. I think it is appropriate in diplomacy. It is an economic struggle,” Oshiomhole said.

He argued that while some South Africans accuse Nigerians of taking their jobs, Nigerians should return home and take over employment opportunities created by major South African companies operating in the country, including MTN and DSTV.

Advertisement

When we hit back, the President of South Africa will not only talk but will also go on his knees to recognise that Nigeria cannot be intimidated.

READ ALSO:South African Ambassador Found Dead Outside Paris Hotel

We will not condone any life being lost. If a crime has been committed under the South African law they have the right to bring any such person to justice, but to kill our people as if we are helpless, we will not allow that,” Oshiomhole added.

Advertisement

DAILY POST reports that several Nigerians in South Africa have reportedly been attacked, and their businesses destroyed, in ongoing xenophobic attacks in the country.

Continue Reading

News

IGP Orders Officers Display Name Tag On Uniform, Gives Update On State Police

Published

on

By

The Inspector General of Police, IGP, Tunji Disu, has ordered all police personnel to always have their name tags on their uniforms for easy identification.

Disu disclosed that only police personnel who are undercover are exempted from displaying their name tags.

Speaking on Tuesday, Disu said: “All police officers should have their name tags. All of us on the high table have our names apart from the undercover among us so if you look at all the Commissioners of Police we have our name tags, so it’s not our standard.

Advertisement

READ ALSO:

All the Commissioners of Police are here and that is why we called this meeting, we have list of things like this that we will want to discuss with the Commissioners of Police, we have told them earlier and we will still let them know that every that happens within their area of jurisdiction falls under their control.”

On the issue of state police, the IGP said: “Since we got the signal that the Federal Government of Nigeria intend to establish State Police and since we are the federal police, we decided to take the bull by the horn and put down our own side of what we believe on how the state police should be run.

Advertisement

“A lot of things were taken into consideration, a lot of comparative analysis was done and it has been transmitted to the National Assembly.”

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Court Orders SERAP To Pay DSS Operatives N100m For Defamation

Published

on

By

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has ordered a non-governmental organization, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, to pay N100 million as damaged to two operatives of the Department of the State Services, DSS, for unjustly defaming them in some publications.

The court also ordered SERAP to tender public apologies to the defamed officers,
Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, in two national newspapers, two television stations and its website.

Besides, the organization was also ordered to pay the two operatives N1 million as cost of litigation and 10 percent post-judgment interest annually on the judgment sum until it’s fully liquidated.

Advertisement

Justice Yusuf Halilu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory gave the order on Tuesday while delivering judgment in a N5.5 billion defamation suit instituted against SERAP by the DSS operatives.

The judge found SERAP liable for unjustly defaming the two DSS operatives with allegations that they unlawfully invaded its Abuja office, harassed and intimidated its staff, in September 2024.

READ ALSO:How We Arrested Terror Suspect Who Threatened To Kill Students, Teachers In Abuja — DSS

Advertisement

In the offending publication on its website and Twitter handle, SERAP alleged that the two operatives unlawfully invaded and occupied its office with sinister motives.

The judge held that the publication was in bad taste especially from an organization established to promote transparency and accountability, as nothing in the publication was found to be truthful.

The DSS staff had listed SERAP as 1st defendant in the suit marked CV/4547/2024. SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, was listed as the 2nd defendant.

Advertisement

In the suit, the claimants – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – accused the two defendants of making false claims that they invaded SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024..

Counsel to the DSS, Oluwagbemileke Samuel Kehinde, had while adopting his final address in the mater urged the judge to grant all the reliefs sought by his client in the interest of justice.

READ ALSO:DSS Arrests Suspected Gunrunner, Recovers 832 Rounds Of Ammunition

Advertisement

He admitted that although the names of the two claimants were not mentioned in the defamation materials, they had however established substantial circumstances that they are the ones referred to in the published defamation article by SERAP on its website.

The counsel submitted that all ingredients of defamation have been clearly established and the offending publication referred to the two officials of the secret police.

However, SERAP, through its counsel, Victoria Bassey from Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, law firm, asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the two claimants did not establish that they were the ones referred to in the alleged defamation materials.

Advertisement

She said that SERAP used “DSS officials” in the alleged offending publication, adding that the two claimants must establish that they are the ones referred to before their case can succeed.

Similar arguments were canvassed by Oluwatosin Adefioye who stood for the second defendant, adding that there was no dispute in the September 9, 2024 operation of DSS in SERAP’s office.

READ ALSO:Alleged Cyberstalking: DSS Plays Video Evidence In Sowore’s Trial

Advertisement

He said that since SERAP in the publication did not name any particular person, the claimants must plead special circumstances that they were the ones referred to as the DSS officials.

Besides, he said that there is no organization by name Department of State Services in law, hence, DSS cannot claim being defamed adding that the only entity known to law is National Security Agency.

The claimants had in the suit stated that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted on their reputation.

Advertisement

The DSS also stated, in the statement of claim, that, in line with the agency’s practice of engaging with officials of non-governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials – John and Ogunleye – to visit SERAP’s office and invite them for a familiarization meeting.

The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP’s management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.

READ ALSO:DSS, Police Partner NCCSALW To End Terrorism, Mop Up Illegal Arms

Advertisement

John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said before they immediately exited SERAP’s office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation’s management about the visit and volunteered a phone number – 08160537202.

They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle – @SERAPNigeria – that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.

The claimant added, “On the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP’s website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark skinned man,” invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).

Advertisement

John and Ogundele stated that “due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as the Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN)”.

“Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants.”

READ ALSO:SERAP To Court: Stop CBN From ‘Implementing ‘Unlawful, Unjust ATM Fee Hike’

Advertisement

They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to their reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation and are therefore, incompetent and unprofessional.

The claimants therefore prayed the court for the following reliefs: “An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5 billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.

Advertisement

“Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.

“An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50 million as costs of this action.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version