The document discusses the constitutional right of public access to court proceedings in Nigeria. It references several court cases that have established that this right cannot be waived or contracted away as it is a public right held by all citizens. Restricting some media houses while allowing others would undermine this constitutional right. The right to access and report on court proceedings is guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution and accrediting only some journalists is unconstitutional.
The document discusses the constitutional right of public access to court proceedings in Nigeria. It references several court cases that have established that this right cannot be waived or contracted away as it is a public right held by all citizens. Restricting some media houses while allowing others would undermine this constitutional right. The right to access and report on court proceedings is guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution and accrediting only some journalists is unconstitutional.
The document discusses the constitutional right of public access to court proceedings in Nigeria. It references several court cases that have established that this right cannot be waived or contracted away as it is a public right held by all citizens. Restricting some media houses while allowing others would undermine this constitutional right. The right to access and report on court proceedings is guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution and accrediting only some journalists is unconstitutional.
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.