En la gestión legal.

Self-Assessment Exercise 3.3

Mr. Afeez Abdulafeez Balogum is of the Islamic faith. He wants to change to the Christian faith and his state government vehemently warned him not to do so as the state is purely Islamic. Afeez does not know what to do and he has come to y ou for advice.

Using Constitutional sections; advise Afeez on his rights on the above issues.

The Nigeria Constitution guarantees freedom of expression to every individual and the press. A person therefore has freedom to hold opinions as he will, and to receive, and impart ideas and information without interference. A person shall within the provisions of any Act enacted by the National Assembl y be free to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opi nions.

In Archibishop Okogie v A. G. Lagos State and in Adewole & Ors v Jakande the courts held: that the word “media” is not limited to the press, but includes any medium for imparting and receiving information and it includes schools and that the right to freedom of expression and the press includes the right to own a private school to receive and impart ideas and information without interference. The Right to Liberty of expression and the press mea ns two broad things:

1. Right to freedom fr om prior censorship or restrai nt of publication 2. But not freedom from the legal consequences of an unlawful,

criminal, mischievous or defam atory publication

In the words of the eminent English jurist Sir William Blackston e (1723 – 1780)

“The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publication and not in freedom from ensure for criminal matter when published. Everyman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the Press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must face the co nsequence s of his temerity.

The right of freedom of expression and the press as guaranteed in the constitution is prima facie sufficient to protect the press.

Comparati vely, though the United States Press freedom is provided in absolute words to the effect that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the Press. Yet in practice and in reality there are statutory enactments which limit press freedom. Thus, the constitutional provision whilst permitting free speec h does not provide

immunity for every possible use of language. In Frohwerk v. US. the Supreme Co urt of the United States sai d:

“We venture to believe that neither Hamiliton, nor Madison, nor any other competent person then or later, even supposed that to make criminal the counseling of murder with the jurisdiction of Congress would be an unconstitutional interferences with free speech”

In reality, therefore there is no difference in the position of the law as regards freedom of the Press in the United States, United Kingdom and in Nigeria. In Nigeria, the constitution on the other hand permits restriction of press freedom, for instance:

1. For the purpose of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, that is, classified matters or offi cials secrets.

2. For the purpose of maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, that is, the law of co ntempt of c ourt.

3. For the purpose of preventing former or present public office holders under the government of the Federation or of a State or Local Government or members of the armed forces or other security services from divulging classified information or official secret, they received in the course of servi ce to the nation.

Furthermore, the provision of the right to freedom of expression and the press, do not invalidate any law that is reasonabl y justifiable in a democrati c society in the interests of:

4. defence 5. Public safety 6. Public order

7. Public morality; such as, by laws prohibiting obscenity and harmful publications

8. Public health; or

9. For the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, for instance, against defamation and other harmful publications, and so forth.

Ordinarily though by ethics of the profession a journalist is not to disclose his source of information, however, under the constitution, disclosure may be required in the interest of the State, such as, in the interest of defence, public safety, public order and so forth. Where a journalist is required to disclose his source of information in the interest of the State, he withholds such information at his own risk.

At common law, only four relationships enjoy the privilege of non-disclosure of information that has been received in confidence. These classes of persons enjoy privilege and cannot be compelled at law to disclose information against the other. These relationships are:

i. lawyer and cl ients ii. Wife and husband

iii. Informant and government

New York Times Co v United States. The Attorney General of the United States sought an injunction against the New York Times, the Washington post and other newspape rs to stop the publication of certain alleged Pentagon papers. The U. S. Government failed to show that the publication would cause immediate and specific damage to the security of the nation. The United States Supreme Court held: that the application for injunction to stop the publication would be refused. Similarly, in Twentieth Century Fox Music Corp Aiken the United States Supreme Court said that:

“A prior restraint on expression comes to… court with a heavy presumption against its unconstitutionality”.

Thus, the courts are usually suspicious of laws, which impose restraints on freedom of expression, prior to publication, including onerous licensing requirements, or laws requiring permits before public assembl y and speeches can be made. Ordinarily, courts strictly interprets such laws to see that they must be laws that are reasonably justifiable in a democrati c society. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. Federal Communication Co mmission, the US S upreme Court said that:

“Congress need not stand idly and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the people or to exclude from the air waves anything but their own views of fundamental questions”.

4.0 CONCLUSION

It is impossible to conceive of a modern society operating without the benefit of the rule of law as enshrined in the Constitution or worthy the carefully formulated principles, standards and rules that keep the social complex from disintegration; indeed the intricate problems arising in an urban society cannot be dealt with in the absence of statutes, courts, legislatives, executive, policemen and other legal personel of justice.

5.0 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have learnt about the fundamental human rights and the various issues therein. We have take n section 33 to 38 in this unit; we shall conclude the rest in the next module.