You are on page 1of 5

It is an elementary principle of law

that rights of a public nature cannot


be waived or contracted out of. See
Menakaya v. Menakaya (2001) 16 NWLR
(Pt. 738) 203-SC.

Again, as was held in Xtodeus Trading


Co. v. Vincent Standard Trading Co.
(1995)8 NWLR (Pt. 412) 244 (P. 255,
paras G-H), parties are not competent
to waive their constitutional right
which they share in common with the
public.

Apart from out rightly undermining the


clear provision of the constitution, I
find it utterly disingenuous for the
court to accredit selected media houses
while restricting other media houses
from exercising their constitutional
right to freely access and witness
court proceedings.

The Supreme Court in N.A.B Ltd v. Barri


Eng. Ltd (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 413) 257 in
applying the provision of Section 33(3)
of the 1979 Constitution which is in
pari-materia with Section 36(3) of the
1999 Constitution, unimpeachably held
that the right as provided under
Section 33(3) of the 1979 Constitution
is a public right for every citizen of
Nigeria. The Court went further to
state that, the Court must be open to
anyone who may present himself for
admission.

Although the proviso under Section


36(4) of the 1999 Constitution appears
to provide certain exceptions where the
Court can safely derogate from the
provisions of Section 36(3) and (4) of
the 1999 I'm, in the instant case, I
simply cannot rationalize how
accrediting and/or restricting selected
media houses would serve the purpose of
safeguarding the interest of defence,
public safety, public morality, public
order or where as in this case
publicity would be contrary to the
interest of justice. Rather, a properly
constituted and an all encompassing
media, devoid of any form of partisan
accreditation would do more to assuage
the feelings of those that that feel
they have been unduly marginalized and
persecuted. This in turn, would not
only foster the cause or interest of
justice but also give the people a
renewed and veritable hope that justice
will ultimately be done.

The right of the public (including


Journalists) to free access to court
proceedings (subject to the
availability of space in the courtroom)
is a constitutional guaranteed right
and being a Public right, it cannot be
waived.

By virtue of Section 36(3) & (4) of the


Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), trials,
especially criminal trials are to be
held in public with open doors to all.
This age-long principle was also re-
echoed by the Court of Appeal in the
case of JOSHUA v. STATE (2000)5 NWLR
(Pt.658)591.

The right of the press to disseminate


information to the public is
inalienable. In fact the Court of
Appeal warned in the case of Akomolafe
v Guardian Press Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR
(Pt. 853) 1 that this right must not be
whittled down by legal or linguistic
refinements. See also (Gomes v. Punch
(Nig.) Ltd. (1999) 5 NWLR (Pt. 602)
303 referred to.] (P. 16, paras. D-E)

Again, Section 39(1) of the


Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria, 1999 (as Amended) guarantees
that every person shall be entitled
to freedom of expression,
including freedom to hold opinions and
to receive and impart ideas and
information without interference. See
Sun Publishing Ltd v. Aladinma Medicare
Ltd (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1518) 557.

The idea of an unbiased reportage by a


press that is disinterested in a matter
cannot be overemphasized. Per EKO,
J.C.A. at page 466, paras. B-D: stated
succinctly in the case of John Holt Plc
v. Allen [2014]17 NWLR 455
That the press is free to report court
proceedings when a trial takes place
and doing that is a genuine public
service in enabling the public to see
for themselves whether justice is being
done, and/or done substantially.

In sum, it is my view, that the mere


act of accreditation of Journalist is
illegal and unconstitutional for It
goes against the clear provisions of
Sections 36(3) & (4); 39(1) of the 1999
Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria and Article 9(1) & (2) of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights (Ratification and Enforcement)
Act CAP A9 LFN 2004.

You might also like