Evangelist Mrs. Helen Ukpabio & Anor. V. National Films And Video Censors Board (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PETER-ODILI, J.C.A.

By a writ of summons filed on the 11th day of November, 2002, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs at the lower court:-

1. A Declaration that the refusal of the defendant to approve the plaintiff’s films titled “Rapture” Part 1 and 2, for release and distribution is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void as it violates section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the procedures outlines in the National Films Video Censors Board Degree (Act) Non. 85 of 1993.

2. A Declaration that the inaction/refusal or neglect of the defendant in respect of setting up an appeal committee within 60 days to decide the appeal lodged by the plaintiff against its decision not to approve the plaintiffs’ films titles “Rapture” part 1 and 2, for release and distribution is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void and that the defendant by this, is deemed to have accepted the appeal lodged by the plaintiffs.

3. A Mandatory Order compelling the defendant to classify and approve for release, the films known as “Rapture” part 1 and 2, as presented to it and corrected by the plaintiffs.

Alternatively

An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, whether by itself, its agents, servants, privies or otherwise howsoever from restricting or distributing in any way the sale, distribution or marketing of the films known as “Rapture” (Pt. 1 and 2), until the final determination of this matter.

Facts briefly stated

The gravamen of the plaintiff’s case is that the 1st plaintiff (now 1st appellant) is a renowned Christian evangelist of the word of God who heads several churches in Nigeria and West Africa. The 1st plaintiff is also a trustee of the Liberty Foundation Gospel Ministries, incorporated. The 2nd plaintiff is a body registered under Part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990, to carry on the propagation of Bible teaching. The respondent is a legal entity, with perpetual succession and a common seal, capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name, and is set up by the National Films and Video Censors Board Degree (Act) No. 85 of 1993. The appellants’ case is that as part of their efforts to preach and teach the bible to their members and prospective converts, they engage in the production and distribution of home video (video films).

It was in the pursuit of this goal that sometime early in the year 2002, they finished the production of a video film titled “Rapture part 1 and 2,” which in short, teaches their perspective of the rapture as foretold by the Bible. The plaintiffs (appellants) thereafter presented the films to the defendant (respondent) for censorship. By letters dated 14/6/2002, the defendant through its executive director wrote to the plaintiffs directing the plaintiffs to effect certain corrections in some scenes in the films. The letters shall be relied on at the trial of the action. The plaintiff effected the said corrections and resubmitted the films for censorship. By a letter dated 8th August, 2002 the defendant again, through its executive director, wrote to the plaintiffs totally refusing that the film be released.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the defendant and in line with section 51(1) of the National Films and Video Censors Board Decree (Act) No. 85 of 1993, the plaintiff, through their counsel, Festus Keyamo of Festus’s Keyamo Chambers sent a notice of appeal against the decision to the defendant accompanied by the grounds of appeal. It was received by the defendant’s employee on the 28th of August, 2002. But the defendant still refused and/or neglected to set up an appeal committee to look into the matter. The plaintiffs then informed the defendant of their intention to commence legal action if they do not take the right steps in rectifying the wrong done to the plaintiffs. The notice of intention was dated 7th of October, 2002 and signed for by the defendant’s employee on 8/10/02. Despite these notices to the defendant, it continued to maintain an uncompromising posture over this matter and failed, refused and/or neglected to censor the plaintiff’s films titled “Rapture” – Part. 1 and 2.

The plaintiffs then proceeded to court to claim the reliefs stated above. At the trial, the plaintiffs called two witnesses while the respondent called four witnesses. The lower court coram: Adah J. A dismissed the appellants’ claims. Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the appellants have appealed against same to the Court of Appeal by lodging in the court below a notice of appeal dated the 17th day of January, 2006 containing 6 grounds of appeal Issues for determination

The appellant on the 8/9/06 filed their brief of argument wherein they formulated five issues viz: –

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law and in fact to have condemned in strong terms the counsel to the plaintiff who gave evidence at the lower court for doing so.