Insp. Gabriel of Comm., Police Monitoring Unit, Lagos State V. Evg. (Mrs) Helen Ukpabio (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

VICTOR AIMEPOMO OMAGE, J.C.A.

In this appeal, the respondent instituted an action in the Federal High Court, Calabar, for the enforcement of her fundamental human right before His Lordship.A. O. Ajakaiye, Federal Judge. In the application, the applicant in the ex parte motion sought leave of the Court to enforce her fundamental human lights to dignity of human person, personal liberty and right to private and family life. She also sought leave for an order of Court when granted to operate as a stay of all actions or matters relating to or connected with the complainant, until the determination of the motion on notice. The trial Court granted the order as prayed, after reading the affidavit in support of the motion.

The deposition in the affidavit in support of the motion is as follows: The applicant is Evangelist (Mrs.) Helen Ukpabio, and she seeks the relief to enforce her fundamental human rights against the Inspector General of Police; Commissioner of Police, Lagos State; Inspector Gabriel, Monitoring Unit, Lagos State; and Nigerian Film and Censors Board. The applicant, Mrs. Helen Ukpabio deposed that she is a preacher and executive producer of liberty films, an arm of the Liberty Foundation Gospel Ministries. She claimed to have produced thirteen religious films and she is the producer of RAPTURE FILMS part 1&2 which is the subject of this action.

The 4th respondent received the film in 2001 for censorship according to the law, directed the applicant to make amendments in the two films. The applicant deposed that she carried out the amendments which were not satisfactory to the 4th respondent, Mrs. Roseline Odey in the service of the 4th respondent and she ensured that the films were not released to the applicant. The applicant said she eventually circulated the films to the church and circulated the films only within the church. Applicant said she subsequently realized that it was not necessary to go to 4th respondent, because the latter had no authority to secure films for religious evangelization. Deponent said that she heard in the air that the film had been banned, but Mrs. R. Odey appeared on AIT to say the film was illegal; after which in the name of the 4th respondent, Mrs. R. Odey used the police to harass and intimidate her.

That on 20th December, 2002, the police bulldozed into her shop at No. 10 Nnebi Street, Surulere, and Lagos and took away several cartons of Rapture Films, three thousand copies of empty cartons, and arrested the sales girl.

On 7th January, 2003, the applicant deposed that the police on the direction of the 3rd and 4th respondent went to her house fully armed with guns where the police harassed and intimidated her. That despite the harassment, the respondents have not charged her to court.

In the motion on notice filed on 10/2/2003 the applicant sought the following:

(1) A declaration that the invasion of the applicant’s shops at Lagos and Calabar by the respondents in the packing of her films there from, the continued harassment of the applicant by the respondents and or their agents is unconstitutional and a violation of her fundamental rights to dignity of human person, personal liberty, private and family life guaranteed under section 34, 35 and 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

2) All order of injunction restraining the respondents whether by themselves, their agents, servants, privy or persons however called from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the applicant’s employment of her fundamental rights to dignity of humans person, personal liberty, private and family life as guaranteed under section 34, 35 and 37 of 1999 Constitution.

3) An order directing the respondents to jointly and severally pay N5, 000, 000.00 damages to the applicant for wrongly violation of her fundamental right to dignity of human person, personal liberty, private and family life as guaranteed under the Constitution aforesaid.

4) N3, 000, 000.00 (Three Million Naira) special damages jointly and severally from the respondents for Four Thousand Video Compact Disc Plates of Rapture film three thousand empty VHS Video Cassettes and five hundred (500) recorded VHS Video Cassette of Rapture Film carried away illegally by the respondents from the applicant’s shop ill Lagos.

The 4th respondent’s office filed a counter affidavit. In it Miss M. A. Maiyaki who is a legal officer in the unit of National Film Censors Board deposed that the National Film Censors Board was set up by Decree No. 85 of 1993: and that its functions include the censor and approval of films and video reserved in Nigeria.

That the film sent for screening by Mrs. (Evg.) Helen Ukpabio to the office at Calabar and Abuja office in the year 2002 were duly censored, and the applicant was told to make earlier corrections in the film. The applicant did not carry out the whole corrections she was directed to make, but the applicant proceeded to show the film and refused to carry out the entire corrections ordered. That the films were not approved for release because the applicant refused to carry out the amendments requested by the board. That generally it is not difficult to get the approval of the censor’s board once the individual carry out the direction of the board. That the release of the film to the church members amounts to releasing the film to the general public.

The 4th respondent’s deny all the averments made by the appellant in the affidavit and averred that the 4th respondent has a legal duty to censor film sent to it, and to demand amendments to film which do not conform to decency and or film which offend the ethics or practices of other religious bodies. That when a religious film fails to meet the laid down requirements such films stand banned, being illegal. It is only the 4th respondent which has the legal authority to stop the contravention of its marketing law, and the officers of Nigeria Police may be instructed by the 4th respondent to perform their duty to ensure compliance with the law.