SERAP Gives Tinubu 48-Hour Ultimatum To Withdraw NBC’s ‘Unlawful’ Notice Threatening Broadcast Stations
SERAP Gives Tinubu 48-Hour Ultimatum To Withdraw NBC’s ‘Unlawful’ Notice Threatening Broadcast Stations
The group said the notice, which threatens sanctions against broadcast stations and presenters, is unlawful and based on vague provisions, including the expression of “personal opinions,” alleged “bullying or intimidation” of guests, and failure to “maintain neutrality.”
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged President Bola Tinubu to direct the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Mohammed Idris Malagi, and the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) to immediately withdraw a “Formal Notice” issued last week.
The group said the notice, which threatens sanctions against broadcast stations and presenters, is unlawful and based on vague provisions, including the expression of “personal opinions,” alleged “bullying or intimidation” of guests, and failure to “maintain neutrality.”
SERAP urged him to “direct the Minister of Information and the NBC to immediately abstain from imposing prior censorship on broadcast stations and Nigerian journalists including presenters and to allow them to freely carry out their constitutional responsibilities and exercise their fundamental human rights.”
SERAP also urged him to “direct the NBC to urgently prepare amendments to the unlawful sections of the Broadcasting Code relied upon by the NBC, and to ensure that these provisions comply fully with the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended] and the country’s international human rights obligations.”
The request followed the notice issued to broadcasters by the NBC on April 17, 2026, alleging a rise in breaches of the 6th Edition of the Nigeria Broadcasting Code in ‘news, current affairs, and political programming’, and threatening that it would ‘enforce strict compliance and impose sanctions for Class B breaches.’
In the letter dated April 18, 2026 and signed by SERAP deputy director Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said, “The NBC’s notice represents a dangerous attempt to impose prior censorship on the media and suppress legitimate journalistic expression.
“The Nigerian Constitution and international human rights law protect both the absolute right to hold opinions and the qualified right to express ideas of all kinds. Journalistic opinion is protected expression.”
SERAP argued that journalism inherently involves commentary and analysis, stating that value judgments cannot be subjected to proof and are protected within democratic discourse. It maintained that restrictions on broadcasters expressing opinions amount to prior restraint that excludes core journalistic functions.
The organisation warned that provisions prohibiting presenters from expressing personal opinions constitute prior censorship and fail legal standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality required in a democratic society. It further said the NBC’s classification of various presenter actions as offences under vague code provisions opens the door to arbitrary enforcement.
SERAP also cited constitutional and international protections guaranteeing the right to receive and share information, noting that this right includes opinions, analysis, and commentary.
It argued that blanket restrictions on such expression violate Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution as well as relevant international human rights treaties.
The group rejected the NBC’s justification based on what it described as a “crisis of professionalism” among presenters, saying such claims are vague, unsubstantiated, and insufficient to justify restrictions on free expression.
According to SERAP, any limitation on media freedom must pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary and proportionate, warning that undefined standards of professionalism could encourage arbitrary regulatory action.
While acknowledging concerns about the misuse of broadcast platforms, SERAP said such issues must be addressed through lawful, precise, and proportionate measures that do not undermine editorial independence or fundamental rights.
It also warned that, ahead of the 2027 general elections, the NBC directive could suppress diverse viewpoints, encourage self-censorship, and weaken the media’s role in promoting accountability and credible electoral processes.
SERAP concluded that the use of multiple sections of the Broadcasting Code to penalise presenters for opinions, alleged intimidation of guests, or perceived lack of neutrality is unconstitutional and inconsistent with both domestic and international legal standards.
“We would be grateful if the recommended measures are taken within 48 hours of the receipt and/or publication of this letter. If we have not heard from your government and the NBC by then, SERAP shall take all appropriate legal actions to compel compliance with our request in the public interest,” it said.
According to SERAP, the “threat of sanctions for broadly defined conduct creates a chilling effect on journalists and broadcasters, thereby undermining constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.”
“Although the prevention of harassment in broadcasting is a legitimate regulatory objective, the provisions of the NBC’s notice prohibiting ‘bullying or intimidation’ lack clear and objective criteria, and fail the requirement of precision and foreseeability,” SERAP said.
“The undefined scope of ‘bullying’ or ‘intimidation’ risks capturing critical or adversarial questioning, which is an essential feature of investigative journalism and democratic discourse.”
SERAP noted that the ‘notice would also seriously undermine the media’s constitutional role as a public watchdog because any regulation that discourages rigorous questioning undermines this function.”
“SERAP believes that the requirement that broadcasters must always provide ‘fair hearing to opposing views, while ostensibly grounded in principles of balance, imposes an impermissible form of compelled speech and editorial control,” it said.
“The classification of the alleged conduct as a ‘Class B breach’ attracting sanctions, including fines or suspension, constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and raises serious due process and fair hearing concerns,” it added.
