Headline

Trust TV: SERAP Drags Buhari To Court Over N5m Fine

Published

3 years ago

August 7, 2022

Editor

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project and Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development have filed a lawsuit against the President, Major General Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), asking the court to “declare arbitrary and illegal, the N5 million imposed on Trust Television, Multichoice Nigeria Limited, Nigerian Television Authority-Startimes Limited and others over their documentaries on terrorism in the country.”

Joined in the suit as Defendants are the Minister of Information and Culture, Mr Lai Mohammed, and the National Broadcasting Commission.

The NBC had last week imposed the fines on the media houses, claiming that their documentaries “glorified the activities of bandits and undermines national security in Nigeria,” and contravene the provisions of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code.

The PUNCH reports that Trust TV was fined over the broadcast of the documentary titled “Nigeria’s Banditry: The Inside Story”, which was aired by the station on March 5, 2022.

The Trust TV management, in a statement last Wednesday, noted that the fine was communicated to the media firm in a letter signed by the NBC Director General, Balarabe Shehu Illela.

Illela had said the fine was imposed on Trust TV because its broadcast of the said documentary contravened sections of the National Broadcasting Code.

But in the suit number FHC/L/CS/1486/2022 filed last Friday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, SERAP, and the CJID are seeking: “an order setting aside the arbitrary and illegal fines of N5 million and any other penal sanction unilaterally imposed by the NBC on these media houses simply for carrying out their constitutional duties.”

According to the plaintiffs: “The NBC and Mohammed have not shown that the documentaries by the media houses would impose a specific risk of harm to a legitimate state interest that outweighs the public interest in the information provided by the documentaries.”

The plaintiffs said: “The documentaries by these independent media houses pose no risk to any definite interest in national security or public order.”

The plaintiffs also said, “It is inconsistent and incompatible with the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] to invoke the grounds of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ as justifications for suppressing access to information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security.”

The plaintiffs also said, “The documentaries by the independent media houses are in the public interest, and punishing the media houses simply for raising public awareness about these issues would have a disproportionate and chilling effect on their work, and on the work of other journalists and Nigerians.”

According to the plaintiffs, the action by the NBC and Mohammed is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, as it is contrary to section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, and international human rights treaties including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has ratified.

The suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their lawyers Kolawole Oluwadare and Ms Adelanke Aremo, read in part: “A fine is a criminal sanction and only the court is empowered by the Constitution to impose it. Fine imposed by regulatory agencies like the NBC without recourse to the courts is unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional.”

“The grounds of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ used as the bases for sanctioning the media houses are entirely contrary to constitutional and international standards on freedom of expression and access to information.”

“Imposing any fine whatsoever without due process of law is arbitrary, as it contravenes the principles of nemo judex in causa sua which literally means one cannot be a judge in his own cause and audi alteram partem which means no one should be condemned unheard.”

“Article 19 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establishes the right to freedom of opinion without interference. Article 19(2) establishes Nigeria’s obligations to respect ‘the right to freedom of expression,’ which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, regardless of frontiers.”

“Under article 19 (3), restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be ‘provided by law’, and necessary ‘for respect of the rights or reputations of others’ or ‘for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health and morals.”

“Although article 19(3) recognises ‘national security’ as a legitimate aim, the Human Rights Council, the body charged with monitoring implementation of the Covenant, has stressed ‘the need to ensure that the invocation of national security is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression.’”

“The grounds for imposing fines on these independent media houses fail to meet the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality.”

“The requirement of necessity also implies an assessment of the proportionality of the grounds, with the aim of ensuring that the excuse of ‘glorifying terrorism and banditry’ and ‘national security’ are not used as a pretext to unduly intrude upon the rights to freedom of expression and access to information.”

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.

Headline

US Revokes Visas Of Foreigners Who Mocked Kirk’s Assassination

Published

5 hours ago

October 15, 2025

Editor

The United States has revoked the visas of several foreign nationals who publicly mocked or celebrated the killing of American conservative activist Charlie Kirk, officials confirmed on Tuesday.

The State Department said the decision followed an internal review of social media posts deemed “offensive and contrary to U.S. values,” adding that the country “has no obligation to host foreigners who wish death on Americans.”

Kirk, 31, co-founder of the conservative youth group Turning Point USA and a strong ally of former President Donald Trump, was shot dead during a political rally on 10 September.

His killing drew widespread condemnation across the political spectrum, with many describing the act as a targeted attack on free speech.

According to U.S. authorities, at least six individuals from Argentina, South Africa, Brazil, Paraguay, Mexico, and Germany had their visas revoked after making comments online that celebrated Kirk’s murder or insulted his supporters.

Examples cited by officials included posts calling Kirk a racist who deserved it, and messages mocking grieving Americans.

“We will not tolerate foreigners who promote or celebrate acts of violence against U.S. citizens,” a State Department spokesperson said.

The move underscores Washington’s growing use of immigration powers to respond to online behaviour perceived as threatening or disrespectful towards the country.

The Department said it continues to monitor social media content for evidence of incitement or endorsement of violence.
Civil liberties advocates, however, have questioned the decision, arguing that revoking visas for social media comments could set a worrying precedent.

Officials maintained that the visa cancellations were lawful, limited in scope, and aimed at protecting national integrity.

“Freedom of speech does not extend to foreigners seeking the privilege of entry while glorifying violence,” the spokesperson added.

The United States has increased visa scrutiny in recent years, requiring applicants to disclose social media handles and online activity.

The policy, officials say, is designed to prevent extremist sympathisers or those expressing hostility towards the country from entering its borders

Headline

Israeli PM Netanyahu Back In Court For Graft Trial

Published

7 hours ago

October 15, 2025

Editor

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was back in a Tel Aviv court on Wednesday for the latest hearing in his long-running corruption trial, which opened in May 2020.

The prime minister kept a smiling face as he and his entourage of several ministers from his conservative Likud party were heckled by protesters en route to the tribunal.

It comes after US President Donald Trump suggested on Monday that the Israeli premier should be pardoned in his three separate corruption cases.

His latest appearance at the Tel Aviv court also follows the return of the hostages taken by Hamas as part of Trump’s US-brokered plan to end the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

In one case, Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, are accused of accepting more than $260,000 worth of luxury goods, including champagne, cigars and jewellery, from billionaires in exchange for political favours.

In two other instances, Netanyahu is also charged with attempting to negotiate better press coverage from two Israeli media outlets. He has denied any wrongdoing, claiming to be the victim of a political plot.

During his current term, which started in late 2022, Netanyahu has proposed far-reaching judicial reforms that critics say sought to weaken the courts.

Those prompted massive protests that only abated after the onset of the Gaza war, sparked by Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

In an address on Monday to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, Trump told the chamber that Netanyahu should receive a pardon in the graft cases.

“Cigars and champagne, who the hell cares about that?” Trump joked, before asking his Israeli counterpart Isaac Herzog: “Why don’t you give him a pardon?”

The Israeli premier is also subject to an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on suspicion of ordering war crimes in his government’s assault on Hamas militants in Gaza.

Netanyahu holds the record for the most years spent at the head of Israel’s government, having served 18 years in several stints as premier since 1996.

AFP

Headline

FULL LIST: US Set To Carry Out Four Executions This Week

Published

7 hours ago

October 15, 2025

Editor

A Florida man convicted of murdering two women he hired for sex was put to death by lethal injection on Tuesday, one of four executions to be carried out in the United States this week.

Samuel Smithers, 72, was sentenced to death in 1999 for the 1996 killings of Christy Cowan and Denise Roach in Tampa. They had been beaten and strangled and their bodies were found in a pond.

Smithers was executed at a Florida state prison at 6:15 pm (2215 GMT), the 14th execution in the southern state this year.

Another convicted murderer was also put to death by lethal injection in the midwestern state of Missouri on Tuesday.

The execution of Lance Shockley, 48, was carried out at 6:13 pm (2313 GMT) for the 2005 murder of a police sergeant, Carl Graham.

Graham was gunned down in an ambush at his home. The officer had been investigating a fatal car accident involving Shockley at the time.

Shockley maintained his innocence but his appeals were rejected by numerous courts, including the Supreme Court. Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe rejected his clemency request on Monday.

Two other executions are scheduled this week.

Charles Crawford, 59, is to be put to death by lethal injection in Mississippi on Wednesday for the 1994 rape and murder of Kristy Ray, a 20-year-old college student.

Richard Djerf, 55, is to be executed by lethal injection in Arizona on Friday for the brutal 1993 murders of four members of a Phoenix family.

In a letter last month apologizing for the crime, Djerf said he was ready to die and would not seek clemency.

“If I can’t find reason to spare my life, what reason would anyone else have?” he wrote.

There have been 37 executions in the United States this year, the most since 2013, when 39 inmates were put to death.

Florida has carried out the most executions with 14, followed by Texas with five and South Carolina and Alabama with four.

Thirty-one of this year’s executions have been carried out by lethal injection, two by firing squad and four by nitrogen hypoxia, which involves pumping nitrogen gas into a face mask, causing the prisoner to suffocate.

The use of nitrogen gas as a method of capital punishment has been denounced by United Nations experts as cruel and inhumane.

The death penalty has been abolished in 23 of the 50 US states, while three others — California, Oregon and Pennsylvania — have moratoriums in place.

President Donald Trump is a proponent of capital punishment and, on his first day in office, called for an expansion of its use “for the vilest crimes.”