Non-justifiability of Chapter Two of the Constitution and the Implications for the Immunity Clause
By Tony Momoh
 

Yar'Adua. Though the ‘medium’ mentioned in the Constitution and identified for ownership for the purpose of disseminating “information, ideas and opinions” (section 39.2) in promotion of the constitutional guarantee of “freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” (section 39.1) would no doubt include the mass media given a role to play in chapter 2, there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the concept of media in chapter 4 is wider than that of chapter 2.

The right to monitor is however not without rules that must bind the monitors. These limitations are unarguably necessary “in the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.” (section 45.1).

The media affected are the Nigerian media because they are identified for ownership, the one who exercises the constitutional right to own, establish and operate a medium to impart information, ideas and opinions (section 39.2) has made a choice to run a business.

He can and often claims to call the tune because he pays the piper. But because of the larger picture, the umbrella under which vested interests must canvass their wares, the proprietor must meet the commitments of establishing a business, hence operate under the guidelines of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and make returns to the Corporate Affairs Commission. He also has another area to contend with – the obligation of the media to monitor governance, which should be understood to be a prerequisite for choosing to go into the business of owning and establishing and operating a medium for whatever purpose.

Everyone who has the responsibility to serve in the public interest in any of the areas – political, economic, social, educational, cultural, environmental and foreign policy – must be monitored strictly, without bias and without fear. The president, the vice president, the governor and the deputy governor, as servants of the people, have nowhere to hide in the monitoring of what they do during their tenure of office. This is why democracy has an edge over other systems of government.

It is the form of government most suitable for ensuring the protection of the rights of the people. No other form of government has proved more resilient and suitable for the protection of the rights.

What operates in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and many parts of Europe, is a result of long years of struggle to include the people in the management of their affairs. It has been and will always be very tempting for those in power to want to exercise it without consultation. But democracy works where is that consultation.

There is only one open medium for the consultation with the people and that medium is the press. There can be no democracy without the press. The success of a democracy is therefore easily identifiable from the measure of freedom of press. That freedom itself is ascertainable from how much the press can control, professionally, its own internal operation of generating information, processing it and disseminating it.

Any attempt by anyone to interfere with any of the three stages of collection, processing and dissemination of information amounts to censorship. This interference includes that of the proprietor in the name of ownership; the security agencies in the name of security interests and not necessarily national security; and the state in a bid to protect certain individuals whose wrongdoings are discovered and exposed only when they have left the positions they occupied and abused.




 

Back to Home Page