Advertising Practitioners Council Of Nigeria (APCON) V. The Registered Trustees Of International Covenant Ministerial Council (ICMC) & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal by the defendant/Applicant against the judgment of A.I. CHIKERE J, sitting at the Federal High Court holden at Abuja. The Plaintiffs/Respondents had filed an Originating Summons dated 6th January, 2005 consequent upon a letter from the appellant requesting the Respondents to submit their religious advertisements for vetting to avoid abuse. This request Plaintiffs/Respondents contested the power of the Appellant thereof in the originating summons. That it constitutes an infraction of their Constitutional rights vide Sections 10, 28, 39, 40 42 of the 1999 Constitution.

In its judgment, the Lower court upheld the contentions of the Plaintiffs/Respondents on the ground that the Advertising Practitioners Registration Act, Cap. 7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 as amended by Decree No. 93 of 1992 imposed limitations on the right to freedom of worship as guaranteed under Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution, holding also that the Plaintiffs not being members of the Appellant, are not bound by the provisions of the Act.

On the 22/4/10 date of hearing learned counsel for the Appellant adopted the Appellant’s Brief filed on 24/8/06 and deemed filed on 4/10/06. Also adopted by Mr. Oloyinde of counsel was Appellant’s Reply Brief filed on 20/11/06.

Mr. Oloyinde reminded the court that on the 26/1/09 this court had granted an application by the Appellant to have the appeal heard and determined only on the brief of the Appellant and the Brief of Respondents 1st and 2nd since the 3rd and 4th Respondents failed to file within time or even at all.

The Appellant in the Brief aforesaid formulated two issues for determination which are as follows:-

1. Whether the Advertising Practitioners Registration Act Cap. 7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 as amended by Decree No. 93 of 1992 having empowered the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria to regulate the placement of advertisements in the media in Nigeria is inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria particularly Sections 10, 38, 39, 40 and 42.
2. Whether in view of the provisions of the advertising Practitioners Registration Act, Cap 7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 as amended by Decree No. 93 of 1992 empowering the Appellant to regulate and control the practice of advertising in all its ramifications, the trial Court was right to have held that the plaintiffs not being members of the Appellant, are not bound by the provisions of the Act.

The Respondents 1st and 2nd through their learned counsel, Miss Ainoko adopted their Brief filed on 17/10/06 and in it were framed two issues and one in the alternative and these are thus:-

i) Whether or not the Advertisement Practitioners Registration Act, Cap 7, LFN 1990 is inconsistent with Sections 10, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the 1999 Constitution with regard to the rights of the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Plaintiffs as embodied in the above sections and thus void to the extent of such inconsistency.

ii) Whether or not the 1st and 2nd Respondents/Plaintiffs as well as their religious activities/programmers are one of those envisaged by the Advertisement Practitioners Registration Act, cap 7, LFN 1990 as falling under the ambit of the regulatory functions of the Appellant/ 1st Defendant.

OR

IN THE ALTERNATIVE:-

Whether the Appellant are the persons to regulate,vet or approve the services of the 1st and 2nd Respondents vis-a-vis the provisions of Sections 10, 38, 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

As earlier mentioned the 3rd and 4th Respondents did not file any briefs and as the court had earlier ruled the hearing and determination of this appeal had to proceed without their briefs.

It seems to me that the sole issues couched by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the alternative are adequate in answer to all the questions that have arisen in this appeal and I shall therefore adopt it to assist the court to determine this appeal.