1.

0 INTRODUCTION
At independence in 1960, Nigeria already had a full complement of both
the Print and the Electronic media-Newspaper since 1859, Radio from 1932
and Television since 1959. At first, radio being a colonial medium served
essentially as a channel linking the colonial administrators with their home
country. In due course, the service along with television took full control of
presenting, the day-to-day activities of the Nigerian people. The Print media on
its part has remained adversarial in line with the original objective of its
founding fathers to use the media to fight the colonial masters so as to attain
independence for the country- a posture which the gamut of physical
challenges associated with the stages of societal development has sustained
over the years. Indeed, to the media of a typical developing country, serving as
an institutional opposition to government and all other authorities is the best
way to compel them to develop society. In the case of Nigeria, it would also
appear that the people accept such a watch-dog stand-point considering that
they have always applauded the media for it and have continued to see media
professionals as redeemers of the people. To a large extent, it is correct to say
the media has kept faith with the people with its numerous fights to facilitate
the nation‘s development.
1.1 THE CONCEPT OF MASS MEDIA
Mass media is communication that is to a large group, or groups, of people in a
short time (Mass Media, 2013, p.1). This can be written, spoken or broadcast
communication. Some of the most popular forms of mass media are
newspapers, magazines, radio, advertisements, social media, television,
Internet, and films/movies. Mass communication refers to the technology that
is used to communicate to a large group, or groups of people in a short time
frame (Pavlik & McIntosh, 2004, p. 22). There are other forms of
communication. Interpersonal communication is kind of how it sounds. It’s
1
more personal and is usually face-to-face between two or more people
(Interpersonal Communication Skills, 2013, p.1). Now, there can be
interpersonal communication that is not face-to-face. For instance four
individuals may have to work on a group project for school. They may choose
to Facetime one another. Facetime is an application (or app) that people use
for video conferencing/chatting using the Internet (What is Facetime, 2013,
p.1). Everyone will be able to see one another as they disclose information
about their project, but they aren’t necessarily face-to-face. This can also
happen through a group chat using the Internet or text messaging. Another
form of communication is Intrapersonal. This is done when an individual
communicates with themselves usually in their mind (Intrapersonal
Communication, 2013, p.1). Now, before you think of strapping this person in a
jacket that makes them hug themselves and place them in an all-white room
think of the last time you had a conversation with yourself to make a decision.
Have you ever gone back and forth with yourself to justify why you could eat
the last piece of cake and still be on a diet? Maybe you’ll run home from work
instead of driving, or maybe something less drastic where you’ll work out three
times that week instead of twice? This, my friend, is intrapersonal
communication. Being able to reach a large amount of people in a short
amount of time is valued especially in society, politics and commerce, and it’s
controlled by corporations (Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 2013, p. 1). The
mass-media industry “employs professionals to conceive, produce, promote,
and deliver communication products that are specifically designed to meet the
goal of attracting large audiences” (p. 1). These products “may be sold as
objects (such as books or digital videodiscs [DVDs]), exhibited for the price of a
ticket or subscription (such as movies shown in cinemas or on premium or pay-
for-view cable TV channels), or offered at no cash cost to consumers so as to
create an audience for paid advertising (such as commercial television or radio
2
broadcasts)” (p. 1). “Some of the mass media use combinations of these
funding sources; for example, most newspapers and magazines are sold
directly to the reader but depend on selling advertisements for their
profitability” (p. 1).

1.2 THE CONCEPT OF LAW

So many scholars in the field of law and other fields of humanities have put
forward the meanings of law. This is because this concept is not easy to define
due to its nature.

Redmond (1971) sees law as a rule to which actions conform or should

conform. Pound (1926) sees it as a body of rules or principles recognized and
enforced by the state via the courts in the courts in the administration of
justice. Clark and Kinder (1991) see it as a body of philosophy, principles,
standards and rules which the courts apply in deciding cases brought before
them.

1.3 The Media and the struggle for Independence in Nigeria

No other group played a more crucial role than as this writer argued
elsewhere, thein Africa and great other political leaders activists recognized the
immense power of the media and relied on it to. In oust Nigeria, the colonial
press was spear-headed by leaders of nationalist movements like Herbert
Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ernest Ikoli, Obafemi Awolowo, Anthony Enahoro
and Ibrahim Imman who according to Jibo and Simbine (2003) used the press to
fight gallantly to challenge the basis of colonial rule so as to liberate Nigerians
from bondage. The attainment of independence was thus largely due to the
media.
1.4 Self-Governance in Nigeria: The posture of the media Nigeria became
an independent nation on October 1, 1960 thereby assuming a sovereign
status that can account for itself. So did many other African countries.
3
Surprisingly, the leaders of the nationalist movements who formed
governments after colonialism did not show real interest in democracy. What
they sought after was power and not democracy. Once in power, the leaders
began to discourage opposition so as to perpetuate themselves in office
leading to what Ake (1992, p2) described criminalization as of political dissent
and the inexorable march to political monolithism. What‖ this suggests is that
if colonial rule brought little or no development to Africa, the situation was
compounded by leaders of nationalists‘ movements who formed the govern
perception of the people because they merely stepped into the shoes of the
white men leaving the people to remain mere objects of development.
Expectedly, the indigenous governments of African nations came under severe
media attacks on behalf of the people. In Nigeria, the media highlighted poor
elections in the North and the East in 1961 and in the West in 1965. The
situation was the same with the elections into the federal House of
Representatives in 1964 which was in fact preceded by a general workers strike
in the year. By the time the political turmoil in the western region which led to
the proclamation of a state of emergency in the region fully impacted on the
nation, the Nigerian media was probably the first institution to celebrate the
military intervention of 1966.
1.5 The Media in a militarized Nigeria
Between 1966 and 1979 and again between 1983 and 1999, the Nigerian
military seized political power and served as the nation‘s
government. Both periods Although were the hailed by some people and
a section of the media, there were too many issues that were bound to
make the media hostile to the military. To start with, under a military
government, the freedom of the individual and indeed that of the media
would expectedly be in jeopardy. The Nigerian military lived up to that
with so many Decrees, among them the following:
4
i) Newspapers (Prohibition of Circulation) Decree No. 17, 1967. This decree
empowered the Head of the federal military government to prohibit the
circulation of any newspaper which he considered detrimental to any part
of the country.
ii) Public Officers (Protection against False Accusation) Decree No.11, 1976.
This decree made it an offence for any person to publish any false allegation
of corruption in relation to any public officer. When the military returned to
government in December 1983, it reproduced the Decree as No.4 of 1984.
iii) Newspaper (Prohibition of Circulation) (Validation) Decree No.12, 1978. This
decree formalized the ban on the circulation of some issues of the New
Breed Magazine. A similarly worded Decree, No.48 of 1993, likewise banned
some newspapers including Concord and Punch from being published and
circulated in any part of Nigeria.
iv) State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree No.2, 1984. This decree
empowered the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters to order the
detention of any person he considered necessary to exercise control over.
The decree was later amended to bar the courts from asking that anybody
so detained be produced.
As for the liberty of the individual, the military put alleged corrupt
politicians on trial and contrary to what happens in civilized societies, every
accused person was deemed guilty until proven otherwise. In addition, some of
the decrees were retroactive making a subject an offence when it was not so at
the time it was allegedly committed. The media severely criticized the military
on this apparent bad law just as the people‘s trans lack of faith in its political
programmes provoked adverse reactions from the media. General Yakubu
Gowon, who had promised to hand over to a civilian government in 1975,
reneged on his promise. Following incessant changes in his transition
programme, the media capt without end‖ Sani Abacha. Launched General5
5
political parties during his own transition programme and manipulated the
system to make himself the candidate of all the parties, thus seeking to
organize a self-succession programme (Sango, 2006). The media also opposed
the dictatorial military governments because they proved to be no less corrupt
than the civilian governments they toppled (ITN News, 1992).
1.6 The Nigerian media and Presidential Democracy
From 1979 to 1983, Nigeria operated a democracy anchored on the
Presidential system of government with Alhaji Shehu Shagarias President.
Since 1999, the nation has recorded four democratically elected Presidents-
Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yar‘ Adua, Goodluck The Jo governments of these
Presidents were thus neither alien like a colonial government nor a
dictatorship like a military government to which the media should constitute
an opposition. Yet the media fiercely opposed each of them. Media opposition
to the current President is however probably too early to analyse. A few
examples of the posture of the media to the others will suffice here:
(a) Manipulation of the political process.
Throughout the Second republic, the government of President
Shehu Shagari which was under intense media criticism was described as
the “Stolen Presidency” what happened was the that at the end of the
1979 election, the best of the candidates secured 25 percent of the total
votes cast in 12 instead of 13 states which by public perception fell short
of the requirements for the declaration of a winner. The Judiciary
however resolved the issue in favour of Shagari bringing to the fore, a
controversy titled ―12⅔ the media was which encouraged to deprecate
by a dissenting judgment in the Supreme Court (Eso, 1979). All through
his tenure therefore, the media –particularly the southern-based
portrayed President Shagari as an impostor. The Obasanjo Presidency,
1999-2007 was similarly loathed for alleged manipulation of the political
6
 process. Indeed, the tail-end of the tenure of President Obasanjo was
replete with bad press. The major issue was the amendment of the
constitution on tenure which the media and the public secure a third
term after 2007. The adverse publicity of the media on the subject was so
overwhelming that the National Assembly itself threw out the proposed
bill without following the rigours of readings and resolutions. Uproar
over Obasanjo's third term campaign (Toye, 2005)
(b) Corruption:
The public and the media believed that the economic misfortune
of the nation was instituted by the Shagari administration through bogus
contracts and misappropriation of funds. As if to confirm this, the Buhari
military government which terminated the Second Republic clamped
several political leaders to ridiculously long years of imprisonment.
Through features, articles and editorials, the Nigerian media hailed the
development. Media reactions to corruption charges during the
administration of President Obasanjo took the same form. At first, the
media hailed the administration for setting up the Independent Corrupt
Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) to fight corruption and continued to project the two
bodies as the tempo of the crusade rose steadily with top government
officials removed from office and brought to trial on account of
corruption charges. The proactive attitude of the media to cases of
corruption was well applauded as the tonic for the fight against
corruption (Akanbi, 2004). In due course, the direction of the media
changed as it began to insinuate that the war was no longer being fought
with vigour or in good faith. Issues of selective prosecution of offenders
and the use of corruption charges as a weapon against perceived
enemies were being highlighted daily in the media. The several calls for
7
 the trial of President Obasanjo himself soon after he left office would
suggest that the media remained dissatisfied with the methods and
approaches used to fight corruption during his tenure.
(c) Poor Governance:
Media campaigns in the post-Obasanjo years showed that the
media also nursed grudges against Presidents Yar‘Adua and Jonathan.
The media advers Peoples Democratic Party (PDD) from which Yar‘Adua
emerged. On promised a drastic change to the nation‘s epileptic media
against him describing his 7-point Agenda as a slogan and not a
development programme. The failing health of the President and its
resultant controversy over an acting President probably helped the media
to establish a charge of weak leadership against President appeared to
have secured a pan-Nigerian mandate to assume but office the media
after did not relent in attacking his administration. The bone of
contention was the high level of insecurity in the nation. Apart from the
wanton loss of lives and property arising from the post-election violence
mostly in the northern part of the country, incessant bombings in
different parts of the country and the abduction by insurgents of school
girls in Chibok, North-East of the nation popularized media attacks on
President Jonathan.
There was also loud public condemnation of a high degree of
corruption in the management of public affairs which many attributed to
the absence of g administration. Allegations of missing huge sums of
money from government coffers were not satisfactorily explained and the
ruling party did not appear perturbed by the general feeling during the
Jonat administration. As Tenuche (2014, p265) testified, the party’s style
governance was authoritarian; lack respect for the rule of law, highly
corrupt and unable to deliver the dividends of democracy. Thus, people
8
 were justifiably dissatisfied over many issues among them, lack of good
public transportation; ineffectual healthcare system; falling standards in
education; rising unemployment; non-adherence to the rule of law and a
plethora of undemocratic practices. The media as mirror of society did not
fail to reflect the mood of the nation.
The point that has been so roundly made is that the Nigerian
media has been aggressive in its posture towards every Nigerian
government. It fought the colonialists and helped the leaders of
nationalist movements to attain independence for its nation. Thereafter,
it fought the indigenous government which emerged after colonial rule
because of the slow pace of the country trampling on the freedom of the
people. It also fought and has continued to fight leaders of democratic
governments for their insincerity, level of corruption and weak
leadership. In return, Nigerian media professionals have been exposed
to all forms of dangers. According to Gadzama (2014, p1),―in the last
years, Journalists, playwrights, poets, novelists and editors have all felt
the wrath of the government on the numerous occasions that they have
demanded good governance. They have been imprisoned; their
newspapers banned and have faced kangaroo trials. This is without
mentioning the uncountable occasions that members of the Armed
Forces have "accidentally" killed or "accidentally" brutalized media
practitioners. On World Press Freedom Day in 2012, the immediate past
President of the Nigeria Guild of Editors, Femi Adesina openly regretted
that successive administrations in Nigeria had always treated the media
with suspicion, if not as some sort of adversary (Akingbolu, 2012). Is the
trend attributable to the system of media laws in the country?

1.7 Legal empowerment of the Nigerian media

9
 The crucial role of the media can be said to be properly recognized
in Nigeria because the nation‘s highest law—the Presidential Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) assigned to the media, some
specific functions in its Chapter 2titled fundamental objectives and
directive principles of state policy. ‘The chapter is no doubt fundamental
because it spells out in details what can radically develop the nation and
uplift the living conditions of the people. Unfortunately, as if using the
left hand to retrieve what has been given by the right hand, the
constitution classifies the chapter as non-justiciable; meaning that the
constitution bars the people from legally compelling the government to
live up to the high expectations envisaged by the chapter.
It is in fact instructive that another noteworthy provision in the
same constitution, this time, Section 308 makes it impossible for anyone
to sue the President or State Governors whose mandate is to implement
public policy. The section makes the following crucial points: a) no civil or
criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against a person to
whom the section applies during his period of office; b) a person to
whom the section applies shall not be arrested or imprisoned during that
period either in pursuance of the process of any court or otherwise;
and(c) no process of any court requiring or compelling the appearance of
a person to whom the section applies, shall be applied for or issued.
From these provisions, it can be argued that the Nigerian constitution
merely professes to be interested in making government accountable to
the people. If the government cannot be successfully sued for not
providing the benefits contained in chapter 2 of the constitution, of what
use then is the chapter? In other words, who is liable for failure to
develop society if those mandated to do so are shielded from
prosecution?
10
 It can be argued therefore that proposing the lofty ideals in
chapter 2 and yet legally stopping the people from demanding that the
ideals be implemented creates an obvious lacuna. Perhaps that
influenced the writers of the constitution to insert the provisions of
section 22 in the chapter. According to the section, the press, television
and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold
the fundamental objectives contained in the chapter and uphold the
responsibility. This fundamental decision to make the media the police
of the all-important chapter 2 is thus reassuring. But then, does the
constitution correspondingly empower the media to carry out this
onerous assignment? The answer can only be in the negative because all
that the section did was to merely assign a function to the media. To
allocate a function is an entirely different thing from providing the
where-with-all for the successful implementation of the function; just
as there is a clear‘ difference and authority ‘This paper accordingly
between. Contends that the Nigerian media is not legally empowered to
perform its duty.
There is however the argument that the media can rely on the
freedom of speech provision in section 39(1) of the constitution which
provides that every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression,
including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart scrutiny of
this provision however shows that it is not about Press freedom but
freedom of speech. To argue that because media professionals are
citizens, they are covered by the general provision on freedom of speech
which is available to all is simplistic. In any case, there is evidence that
the constitution itself does not see the media and the public as one;
hence it assigned functions to the general public before isolating the
media for its own mandate. Section 13 of the constitution provides that
11
everyone including all organs of government and all authorities and
persons, exercising legislative, executive or judicial powers, shall conform
to, observe and apply the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Constitution. To
further reiterate down the line at section 22 that the media is a body
upon whom the observance of the provisions of the chapter rests shows
that the constitution intended to differentiate the media from the
general public. Having thus effected such a differentiation, the media
should not be expected to derive its empowerment from that of the
public. Instead, there ought to be an exclusive provision on Press
freedom to enable the media to meet the specific mandate given to it by
section 22.
It is equally a weak point to assume that the media is fully
empowered to function because section 39 (2) of the constitution
provides that―every person shall be entitled to own, establish and
operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and
opinions. A proper scrutiny of the provision reveals that it merely
protects the interests of owners and not those of media professionals
who are the real operatives to police the fundamental objectives and
directive principles of state policy enshrined in chapter 2 of the
constitution. What this suggests is that the media is yet to be
empowered to meet its constitutional mandate. Aturu (2010) made the
same point when he warned that care must be taken not to mistake the
empowerment of media owners for that of the media. In making a
demand for specific freedom in the constitution, is the media not
seeking to be pampered? Those who may think so; may have a change of
heart with a look at how some other countries have handled the subject.
In the United States of America, the first amendment to the
Constitution specifically, provides that Congress shall make no law
12
restricting the Press. Although the courts have long struggled in that
country to determine whether the Framers of the Constitution intended
to differentiate press freedom from speech freedom, some legal
scholars, including Justice Potter Stewart, of the U.S. Supreme Court,
have persuasively advocated special press protections distinct from
those accorded to speech. In Ghana, Section 162 (4) of the nation
constitution expressly empowers the media to function. In the words of
the section, editors and publishers of newspapers and other institutions
of the media shall not be subject to control or interference by
government nor shall they be penalized or harassed for their editorial
opinions and views or contents of their in public.
Malawi, Section 36 of the constitution provides that within
Malawi and abroad and to be accorded the fullest possible facilities for
access to public. The situation in Malawi is probably the most apt as the
country provided for freedom of expression in section 35 of its
constitution and moved just one step ahead to provide for Press freedom
in section 36. Therefore, Malawi and other countries which have specific
provisions for media freedom in their constitutions notwithstanding that
there is a general provision for freedom of speech have established
beyond reasonable doubt that Press Freedom and freedom of speech are
not coterminous.
If therefore the media in the USA, Ghana, Malawi and some other
countries are more courageous their facilitation of social change in their
countries, the statutory support they have; cannot be wished away. In
Nigeria on the other hand, there is ample evidence that the media is not
free. It is in earnest obvious from the Acts, laws and Regulations which
govern media practice in the country that there has always been an
overzealous official policy to legally gag the media. The trend in fact
13
dates back to the colonial era when the Newspaper Ordinance of 1903,
the Sedition Ordinance of 1909 and Criminal Code of 1916 came into
being. One of the early steps of the colonial governor, Frederick Lugard
after the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates of
Nigeria was to consolidate all existing Acts to enact the Newspapers Act
of 1917 for the sole purpose of regulating the existence of Newspapers
through the process of registration. The Act was it amended in 1964 to
accommodate Government owned Newspapers which did not exist
before then and in 1993, it was amended again to increase penalties for
breaching any provisions of the Act.
Other laws which govern media practice in Nigeria such as those
on Sedition, Pomography, official Secrets, Copyright and Defamation
were similarly enacted essentially to repress the press and prevent
criticism of the government in power (Aturu 2010, p133). In the case of
the law of defamation, some media professionals think that the law can
make the nation’s it provides media for greater penalty timid for the
media used, than the person who actually committed the offence (Iredia,
2012). Indeed, as far back as 1961, the Supreme Court of Nigeria had
held that the mass media have no special immunity; they must bear full
responsibility for their actions (Momoh, 2004). The media is also virtually
liable for only the more serious dimension of defamations Libel and not
slander because every defamatory act in the media being in permanent
form requires no special proof and as the lawyers say is actionable. Judge
made another intrinsically law is punitive law. In, Journalists are
occasionally confronted with such issues as Contempt of Court. In 2012,
for instance, a magistrate court judge ordered the Police to arrest and
detain seven judiciary correspondents in Logos, south west Nigeria. The
judge accused the journalists of allegedly disturbing court sessions with
14
their cameras and phones, as they were said to be busy clicking for
exclusive pictures, which eventually angered the judge, who handed
down the order. Based on the directive, which was interpreted as
contempt of court, the journalists were moved from the court premises
at Ikeja GRA to Area F Police command for eventual detention (Udom,
2012)
LAWS OF DEFAMATION
Defamation can be defined as transmission to a third party either orally
or written of information which tents to damage the reputation of
another person. It is the publication of a statement, which exposes a
person to hatred, ridicule, contempt and causes him to be shunned or
avoided by right –thinking members of the society. In general, a
defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that is negligently or
intentionally communicated or published to a third party, and that
causes injury or damage to the subject of the statement. Libel and
slander are different types of defamation. Libel is a written defamatory
statement, and slander is an oral defamatory statement. (More: Get the
Basics on Defamation Law.) A statement is defamatory if it tends to hold
the plaintiff (the subject of the statement, who is bringing the lawsuit) up
to scorn, hatred, ridicule, disgrace, or contempt, in the mind of any
considerable and respectable segment of the community. There are
certain types of statements that are automatically considered
defamatory in some states. These types of statements often called
defamatory "per se" Statements that are defamatory "per se" include
statements that claim that the plaintiff:
has committed a serious, notorious, or immoral crime

has an infectious or terrible disease, or

is incompetent in his job, trade, or profession.

15
 Libel and slander are forms of defamation, which is an untrue
statement presented as fact and intended to damage a person’s character
or reputation. Libel is a defamatory statement made in writing, while
slander is a defamatory statement that is spoken. To be defamatory, a
statement, whether written or spoken, must be made with the knowledge
that it is false or with a reckless disregard for the truth, meaning that the
person making the statement did not go far enough in determining whether
it is true. When made against a private citizen, as opposed to a public figure
such as a celebrity or politician, defamation can also be proven if the
person making the statement should have known that it was false or should
have more thoroughly questioned its veracity. The kinds of false statements
the courts may view as defamatory are broad, including statements that a
person committed a serious crime, has a particular illness, or is
incompetent in their job. It’s important to note the difference between
opinion and defamation. Statements that cannot be objectively proven true
or false, such as “I think Bill is a jerk,” are considered opinion and thus are
not defamatory. However, to say, “I think Bill embezzles money from
work,” while an opinion, implies a fact that could be injurious to Bill’s
reputation even if false. This is why news outlets commonly use the word
allegedly when reporting on crimes that have yet to be tried in court.

DEFAMATION IS A FALSE STATEMENT OF FACT, NOT OPINION

The most important aspect of a potentially defamatory statement is

that it purports to be a statement of fact. Opinions are not defamatory.
People have an absolute right to express whatever opinions they like about
other people. Let's look at some examples of facts versus opinions. "I think
that Joe is a jerk," is an opinion. It's not a polite opinion, but it is an opinion
nonetheless. But "Joe stole $1,000 from his employer" is a statement of
fact. If that statement isn't true, it is defamatory. That is a false statement
that clearly can cause injury to Joe. It could get him fired. But what about
something in between these two types of statement? What if someone
says, "I think that Joe stole $1,000 from his employer." If you qualify a
statement of fact by saying "I think," does that always turn a statement of
fact into an opinion? The short answer is no. "I think that Joe is a jerk" is a
pretty vague statement of opinion. But "I think that Joe stole money from
his employer" implies that Joe may very well have stolen some money. The

16
very fact that you said it implies that you may think that he did and that you
want others to know that he might have stolen some money. The bottom
line -- depending on who you say it to and how you say it, implying that
someone did something bad by phrasing it as an opinion can be
defamatory. It's probably best to avoid saying these kinds of "gray area"
things if you think that there is the slightest chance that the statement
could get around

THE LAW OF PRIVACY

Privacy is defined as the claim of individuals, groups, or instructions,

to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information
about them is communicated to others. When the reporter and editor talk
about privacy, they speak of their right to print facts that they consider are
not or should no longer be private. The most glamorous issues arise in
connection with public officials. But the problems in newsrooms more often
arise, in connection with private individuals who find themselves the
potentials subject of public attention. The law of privacy is the law that
strives to strike a balance between two ends - at one end we have the
responsibility of the journalist to inform the public and at the other end the
individual right to live are private. The law here protects individual privacy
in order to allow persons to enjoy their private life, because the journalist
in the course of digging up information to uncover facts exceeds bounds. It
is a well known fact that the more an individual attains a high rank, the
more limited his privacy. That is why public figures and top government
officials have limited privacy. Hence, the law recognizes those in high offices
to have less privacy. The basic law of privacy invasion has been simply
stated below: -

(a). Appropriation of an Individual's name or likeness to advertise another

product or promote his business without the consent of the individual
constitutes an invasion of privacy.

(b) An uninvited entry into an individual home, or eaves dropping or prying,

or trespassing to take pictures, can also constitute an invasion of privacy.

(c). Publicity which places private aspects of an individual in a false light in

the public eye creates a cause of action for invasion of privacy somewhat
analogous to libel. Based from the above basic laws of privacy, a person's
17
privacy can be invaded when one of the following offences is committed by
journalists:

(i). Offence of Appropriation: - This means using someone's image without

his consent, be it expressly or by implication, e.g. when you use somebody's
picture without his consent. Advertisers face this problem. However, when
such picture is obtained in public function, then he cannot sue.

(ii). Offence of Placement in False Light: - This is when you attribute to

someone else the views, which he does not hold. This happens also if you
see somebody's picture wrongly.

(iii). Offence of Physical Instruction: - This is also referred to as

unreasonable instruction upon the privacy of a person's life. This can be
referred to as trespass in legal term.

DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO JOURNALIST CHARGED FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY

When a journalist is sued to a court of law for invasion of privacy, the court
could accept the following pleas as part of proving one’s innocence.

(a). The right of privacy is the right to be left alone e.g. if someone attracts
public attention more invariably sacrifice most of his private life to the
public.

(b). Another defence is that, if someone consents or volunteers he cannot

complain. This means when you grant the press interview, you should not
turn around and sue for invading your private life i.e. in Latin terms means
"volenti non fit injuria".

(c). Defence of Public Interest: If you can claim to have disseminated an

information based on public interest especially if the information concerns
public interest and welfare, his case is not actionable by law.

In addition to the laws, there are also several regulatory bodies

such as the Nigerian Press Council, the National Broadcasting
Commission, the Film and Video Censors Board and the Copyright
Commission set up essentially to put the media in check all the time. In
the case of the Nigerian Press Council (NPC) which regulates the print

18
media, it is set up supposedly to protect both the public and the press,
but it is difficult to find an example of the NPC ever standing on the side
of media operatives despite the numerous attack on them in Nigeria.
Interestingly, no media professional in expects view of the judicial the
decision council that its enabling law is oppressive, overbearing and
grossly not competitive (Iriekpen, 2010). On its part, the National
Broadcasting Commission (NBC) which regulates broadcasting in the
country penalizes only the opposition media and for frivolous reasons
too. In 2009, it took the courts to save Adaba FM 88.5 Radio, an Akure
based station from the claws of regulatory body. According to Sowole
(2009), the decision of the NBC to shut the station was reversed by
Justice C. Okeke of the Federal High Court Akure who upheld the plea of
the station that the NBC breached its constitutional right to fair hearing,
freedom against discrimination and freedom of expression.
As for the public media, their enabling laws are equally restrictive
leaving the operatives with little or no room for personal initiative and
discretion. For example, the Nigerian Television Authority Act which sets
up the main public television broadcaster says in its sect direction of a
general character or relating generally to political matters with regard to
the exercise by the authority of its functions under this act and it shall be
the duty of the Authority to comply with such directions.‖ The same
provision which is reproduced in the laws setting up the Federal Radio
Corporation of Nigeria and the Voice of Nigeria has turned out to be the
basis for which the organizations are now and again professionally
misdirected especially to manipulate their news bulletins (Iwokwagh,
2005).
Perhaps some of the media laws and regulations so far identified fall
into the category which section 45 of Nigeria‘s constitution says may be
19
reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interest of defence,
public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or for the
purpose of protecting the rights and freedom or other persons but their
implementation as shown above are often inimical to media practice in
Nigeria. It is therefore necessary to call for moderation in the urge to
control the media in the country. This is because although some media
reports occasionally inflict pain on some people and their families, the
public is the main beneficiary of the media exposure of events and ills of
society. It should be constantly borne in mind that as the watch-dog of
society, it is the media which points out danger signals in the horizon to
forestall a woeful end. In addition, it is in-appropriate to gloss over the
commendable role of many media professionals in several matters of public
interest to impute that they are always used for only ignoble purposes.
Like every other profession, the media certainly has its bad eggs that
are engaged in sensationalism, inaccurate reporting, corrupt practices and
other vices. It also has a plethora of constraints; among them, ownership
control, poor salaries as well as inadequate human and material resources.
These notwithstanding, the media can be exceedingly useful to society
because it is the most effective organ of public enlightenment which can
empower the people to be rational, wise and useful to themselves and
society. It is indeed instructive that at the 11 th Annual All Nigerian Editors
conference (ANEC) in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State in August 2015, the Guild
admonished its members in a communiqué to among other things, ―do
more to are yearning for by playing the watchdog role assigned them by
Section 22 of the Nigerian Constitution. For this to happen, media practice
in the country certainly desires a far more favourable environment than
presently holds. Fortunately, Nigeria has since 2011 joined those countries
which operate a freedom of information regime which can assist the media
20
 to further educate the public. It is however unfortunate that the Freedom
of Information Act (2011) which provides for unhindered access to public
information has not substantially changed the situation because the
modalities for implementing the law are yet to be institutionalized.
1.8 Conclusion
The main issue highlighted in this paper concerns the pragmatic roles
played by the Nigerian media at different stages of the nation‘s
development. The pa overcome colonialism, dictatorship and anti-
democratic activities, the Nigerian media needs to be better appreciated by
the nation and its people. Apart from a hostile environment characterized
by poor remuneration of media operatives and their frequent harassments
by law enforcement agencies, there are no legal enactments that are pro
media in the nation. Most importantly, as some other countries have done,
yet the Nigerian constitution assigns functions to the media as an
institution. Other legal enactments including the enabling laws setting up
media organizations and the several media regulatory bodies tend to
unduly and adversely breathe down heavily on the media.
Accordingly, the paper calls for a change of heart towards the
Nigerian media because except there is some good measure of balance
between the expectation that the media would undertake developmental
journalism and the constraints it goes through in the performance of its
functions, public enlightenment would suffer. On their part, Nigerian media
professionals must strive to play their agenda setting role more effectively
by ensuring that they raise the level and quality of public debates on issues
of national interest. With that, perhaps those who are not convinced that
the Nigerian media deserves more freedom and respect may have a
rethink. We cannot rule out the possibility that such a trend might influence
a pro-media disposition in the nation especially the making of media
21
friendly laws and regulations which would be beneficial to all.

22
23
24
25