Africa Media Review Vol. 5 No. 2.1991 ©African Council for Communication Education Origins and Interpretation of Nigerian Press Laws By Chris Ogbondah and Emmanuel U. Onyedike* Abstract The paper traces colonial legacies in Nigeria's press laws. Specifically, it traces the early antecedents of the Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984 and finds that it was modelled after earlier libel and sedition laws and the Newspaper Amendment Act, all of which criminalize free speech and opinion directed against those in authority. The study finds similarities in the motivations behind the promulgation of Decree No. 4 and those behind the earlier libel and sedition laws, i.e. fear of those in authority of criticism. Although Nigerian courts were reluctant to uphold individuals' rights of free speech and opinion shortly after independence, the study finds that later court decisions have found sections of the criminal code and sedition laws which criminalize free speech to be anachronistic and unconstitutional. Dr. Chris W. Ogbondah teaches in the Department of English, University of Northern Iowa at Cedar Falls, and Dr. Emmanuel U. Onyedike teaches in the Department of Mass Media Arts, Hampton University, Hampton, Virginia, the U.S.A. 59 Origines et Interpretations des Lois Regissant la Presse au Nigeria Resume Cet article analyse les effets de l'heritage colonial au sein des lois regissant la presse au Nigeria. II se penche plus particulierement sur les antecedents de la fonction publique (Protection contre les Fausses Accusation), D£cret No. 4 de 1984 et trouve qu'il etait concu sur le model anterieur des lois sur l'dtiquette et la sedition ainsi que sur l'Edit d'amendcment relatif a la presse ecrite, qui touts considdrent comme crime la liberte d'expression et d'opinion dirigees contre les autorites. L'article etablit des similitudes entre les motivations qui conduisent a la promulgation du Decret No. 4 et celles qui ont conduit a l'edition anterieure des lois sur l'dtiquette et la sedition, telle que l'appr£hension des critiques par les autorites. Bien que les tribunaux nig6rians aient hesite a valider la Chartre des droits individuels sur la liberte d'opinion et d'expression immediatement apres l'inddpendance, l'enquete rdi/ele que les decisions ulterieures des tribunaux avaient trouvd anachroniques et inconstitutionnelles des sections du code crimi- nel et des lois sur la sedition qui sanctionnent comme criminelles la libertd d'expression et d'opinion. 60 Introduction The 1960s witnessed the height of nationalist movements that culminated in the political independence of many African countries. But almost three decades after those political emancipations, the questions remain: How much have post-inde- pendence African governments borrowed from the colonial statute books in shaping contemporary African press laws? How have the courts interpreted those laws? Nigeria became independent on October 1,1960, and is used in this paper as a case study. The paper specifically examines the Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984 because most of its provisions are found in nearly all post-independence press laws enacted before it. The law has been described as the 'amalgam of all press laws enacted in post-inde- pendence Nigeria'. The paper also examines how the courts have ruled on selected cases involving the press. Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 4,1984 Drafted on March 29,1984, Decree No. 4 was the most dreaded, most repressive and the last press law enacted in Nigeria. It was promulgated during the military regime of Major General Buhari which did not take kindly to press criticisms. The law was drafted to punish authors of false statements and reports that exposed the Buhari administration and or its officials to ridicule or contempt. Section 1, sub-sections (i), (ii) and (iii) of the law - the most formidable section - provided that: Any person who publishes in any form, whether written or otherwise, any message, rumour, report or statement, being a message, rumour, statement or report which is false in any material particular or which brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Military Government or the Government of a state or public officer to ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence under this Decree. Any station for wireless telegraphy which conveys or transmits any sound or visual message, rumour, report or statement, being a message, rumour, report or statement which is false in any material particular or which brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Government or the Government of a state or a public officer to ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence under this Decree. It shall be an offence under this Decree for a newspaper or wireless telegraphy station in Nigeria to publish or transmit any message, rumour, report or statement which is false in any material particular stating that any public officer has in any manner been engaged in corrupt practices or has in any manner comiptly enriched himself or any other person {Gazette, 1984). The law also conferred on the Head of State the power to ban a newspaper and to revoke the license of a wireless telegraph station in any part of the federation 61 if such action was construed to be in the interest of the nation. Section 2, sub-sections (i) and (ii) of the law provided that: Where the Head of the Federal Military Government is satisfied that the unrestricted circulation in Nigeria of a newspaper is or may be detrimental to the interest of the federation or any part thereof, he may by order published in the Gazette, prohibit the circulation in the federation or in any part thereof, as the case may require, of that newspaper; and, unless any other period is prescribed in the code, the prohibi- tion shall continue for a period of twelve months unless sooner revoked or extended, as the case may require. Where the Head of the Federal Military Government is satisfied that the unrestricted existence in Nigeria of any wireless telegraphy station is detrimental to the interest of the federation or any part thereof, he may by an order published in the Gazette (a) revoke the license to such wireless telegraphy station under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1961; or (b) order the closure or forfeiture to the Federal Military Government, as the case may be, of the wireless telegraphy station concerned (Gazette 1984). The law also provided that offending journalists and publishers be tried by a military tribunal composed of three members of the armed forces and a serving or retired High Court judge. The tribunal's ruling could not be appealed in any court. Section 8 of the press law specified punishments for offenders, and provided for a prison term of up to two years without the option of a fine. In the case of news media corporations, the decree provided for a fine of not less than 10,000 naira (Ogbondah, 1986). Rationale for the Law What was the motive of Decree No. 4? Why was such a dreadful law enacted? One possible reason was to stave off adverse criticism of the government, especially criticism that could suggest that Major General Buhari, the Head of State, or any member of his cabinet was corrupt. Buhari was aware of the rumour that spread when he came to power after toppling the government of President Shehu Shagari that he was corrupt just like the civilian politicians he had overthrown. It was alleged that he corruptly enriched himself when he was a state military governor and also knew about the disappearance of 2.8 billion naira in oil revenue allegedly missing when he was the federal minister for petroleum. Buhari's awareness of the rumour and his concern about the effect of the rumour regarding the 2.8 billion naira oil money scandal, could be seen from his reference to the scandal during his first interview as Head of State. During that interview, Buhari robustly defended his dealings as .oil minister. He said that a section of the press was merely crying wolf over the issue, and reiterated that no money was lost. He said: If there was no judicial inquiry in 1979 when I was in the U.S. War College, I would have been brought up and lynched because someone said that 2.8 billion naira was missing in a place I was for three and a half years, and where I quarrelled with friends 62 and everybody because they thought there was so much money, but I refused them access to it. Somebody just got up one day and said money was missing. . . But every body wanted to believe we stole that money {National Concord, 1984) The Head of State certainly had little or no doubt that someone might insinuate in the press that he was corrupt, especially when memories were still fresh of press insinuation that former Head of State, General Murtala Muhammed was corrupt. In that instance, a university law lecturer who was also the editor-in- chief of a news magazine, accused the former Head of State of corruptly enriching himself prior to coming to power. Major General Buhari's concern that someone might make similar insinuation in the press about him, and/or members of the cabinet, became more apparent as the fleeing politicians he deposed from office alleged that the in-coming military rulers were as corrupt as the civilians they overthrew. Colonial Roots Where are the origins of the Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusa- tion) Decree? An examination of colonial documents and statutory provisions regulating the Nigerian press reveals that the roots of this press law are clearly found in the colonial period of Nigerian journalism history. Fragments of the law can be found in the early newspaper laws of Nigeria. One of such laws was the Seditious Offences Ordinance of 1909 which, like Decree No. 4 of 1984, criminalized the publication of false reports or statements that exposed a government official or the government itself to ridicule or con- tempt. Published in September 1909 in the official Gazette and reprinted in an extraordinary issue of the government Gazette dated October 1,1909, the Sedi- tious Offences Ordinance under Sections 3 and 5, provided that: Whoever by words, either spoken or written . . . brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt... the government established by law in Southern Nigeria, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years or with a fine or with both imprisonment and fine. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report, with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause any officer of the Government of Southern Nigeria or any person otherwise in the service of His Majesty to disregard or fail in his duty as such officer or servant of His Majesty . . . shall be punished {Gazette, 1909). The above provisions clearly show that Section 1, sub-section (i) of the 1984 press law was modelled after the 1909 newspaper law. Section 6 of the Seditious Offences Ordinance empowered police, magistrates and district commissioners to check seditious publications in their areas of authority by requiring suspected offenders to execute a bond, to be of good conduct for one year or for such a period as the police, magistrate or district 63 commissioner would be satisfied with the alleged offender's behaviour and conduct The event that precipitated the 1909 newspaper law was Herbert Macaulay's publication of a pamphlet titled, 'Governor Egerton and the Railway.' The pamphlet levelled charges of maladministration against the governor and drew attention to allegations of corrupt practices in the Egerton administration. Con- cern about the effects of unrestricted press criticism led to the drafting of a law based on the Indian Penal Code: which would allow reasonable freedom of discussion of government policy but which would give the government power to punish publications . .. designed to influence an excitable and ignorant populace the bulk of whom are absolutely under the control of Headman [sic] and chiefs who themselves have only recently emerged from barbarism and are still actuated by the old traditions of race (Omu, 1968).3 The language and provisions of Section 8, sub-section (i) of Decree No. 4 of 1984 are similar to those of Section 3 of the 1909 colonial newspaper law. That section of the 1984 newspaper law provided for a prison term of up to two years for convicted offenders of the law - the same provisions found in the colonial law. The 1984 press law merely differed slightly from its colonial primogenitor inUKsens£thatit(D