Commission asks appellate court for leave after technical error voided earlier appeal against ruling stripping it of sanctioning authority

The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) has approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking permission to file a fresh appeal against a Federal High Court judgment that stripped it of the authority to impose fines on broadcast stations.

The application follows the appellate court’s June 17, 2026 decision striking out the commission’s earlier appeal due to a procedural defect in its filing.

The dispute originated from a suit filed by Media Rights Agenda after the NBC fined MultiChoice Nigeria (DStv), TelCom Satellite Limited, Trust TV Network Limited, and NTA StarTimes Limited ₦5 million each for airing documentaries on banditry and insecurity in Zamfara State. The commission had argued that the broadcasts posed a threat to national security.

In its January 10, 2024 judgment, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia, ruled that the NBC acted unlawfully by imposing the fines. The court held that the commission lacked the judicial powers required to sanction broadcasters, noting that it is not a court of law.

The NBC’s initial appeal was dismissed after it was incorrectly identified in court documents as the “Nigerian Broadcasting Commission” instead of its legally recognized name, the National Broadcasting Commission.

Through its counsel, Dapo Akinosun (SAN), the commission is now seeking an extension of time to challenge the ruling and correct the procedural error.

The NBC argued that the case raises issues of significant public importance, warning that allowing the judgment to stand could weaken its statutory authority to regulate the broadcast industry, encourage non-compliance with broadcasting standards, and increase the spread of false, misleading, or inflammatory content capable of triggering public unrest.

The commission is also seeking leave to introduce a fresh argument questioning the legal standing of Media Rights Agenda to institute the original suit. It maintained that its earlier appeal was filed within the statutory timeframe and attributed the setback solely to an inadvertent error by its counsel.

As of the time of filing this report, the Court of Appeal has yet to fix a date for the hearing of the application.