









































Communication, Society and Media 
ISSN 2576-5388 (Print) ISSN 2576-5396 (Online) 

Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm 

20 
 

Review Paper 

What Has Changed? A Critical Analysis of the Law of Sedition 

and the Press in Nigeria since 1914 
Chinedu C. Odoemelam1*, Uche V. Ebeze2, Okorom E. Morgan3 & Daniel N. Okwudiogor3 

1 Department of Mass Communication, Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria 
2 Department of Mass Communication, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awaka, Nigeria 
3 Department of Mass Communication University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria 
* Chinedu C. Odoemelam, Department of Mass Communication, Igbinedion University, Okada, Nigeria 

 

Received: September 24, 2020     Accepted: October 7, 2020       Online Published: April 30, 2021 

doi:10.22158/csm.v4n2p20                       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/csm.v4n2p20 

 

Abstract 

This study is situated within the normative theoretical framework, which focuses on the press in nations 

where the press is expected to assume the coloration of the political milieu within which it finds itself. 

The British colonial masters discovered the power of the press in the early 16th century and devised 

numerous schemes to restrict publication. Such policies were extended to her majesty’s colonies; for 

instance, the law of sedition in Nigeria. Freedom of the press is a right but it is a right that has been 

won only through many hard-fought legal battles like the one fought by John Peter Zenger in the 

seditious trial of 1735. There were several such trials for sedition in the colonies, and despite the 

acquittal of John Peter Zenger, the British colonial government went ahead to adopt such laws in her 

colonial territories. This was exemplified in the seditious offence ordinance that was in force in 1909 in 

Southern Nigeria. This study adopts the historical, legal research and critical paradigm technique to 

examine how the law of sedition has fared in inhibiting press freedom in Nigeria since 1914. The study 

provides an understanding of how colonial influence may affect laws regulating how the media function 

in independent States. 

Keywords 

changed, sedition, press, freedom, publication 

 

1. Introduction 

The task of this paper is to examine the law of sedition and how it has influenced the notion of press 

freedom and other laws regulating the press in Nigeria. To do this, the study undertakes a critical and 

historical approach and observes that, though freedom of the press has been part of the English legal 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
21 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

tradition, it is a right that has been won only through many hard-fought legal battles. This observation 

underpins the hostile relationship that has been the hallmark of government (and her agencies)—press 

relationship in Nigeria. On the other hand, Aliede (2020) suggests that the press perform multiple roles 

towards the growth and development of politics, governance and democracy. Further, the study traces the 

origin of repressive press laws in Nigeria to colonial instruments and enactments and infer that the cat 

and dog relationship that exists between the press and government agency borrow from experiences 

gained from colonial styled governance. Finally, the study shows empirical evidences to prove that such 

attitudes are harmful orientations that Nigerian leaders have refused to unlearn even after over one 

hundred years since the law of sedition emerged and despite clear indications that contemporary 

dynamics do not support the use of seditious laws in gagging the press. Justice Olatawura’s statement 

captures this vividly “we are no longer the illiterates or the mob society our colonial masters had in mind 

when the law (of sedition) was promulgated” (Justice Olatawura’s Judgment in Nwankwo Vs the State, 

1985, cited in Akinola, 2014 Daily Sun). Having outlined the focus of this paper, we now revert to the full 

discussion of the issues. 

In human society, law is a necessary ingredient for ensuring correct conduct. Law concerns itself with 

issues about rights, duties/obligations, values and justice (NOUN, undated). However, due to vested 

interests, contradictions arise in the enactment and use of law. Ibhawoh (2002) has examined the 

tensions and contradictions in the use of law as an instrument of coercion to consolidate British control 

in Nigeria and the legitimizing rhetoric of human rights and social justice employed within the context 

of the operation of the law. His study explored the effects of laws introduced mainly to foster British 

colonial hegemony against the background of the aspiration to guarantee social justice and forge a 

“modern” regime of rights and liberties for native subjects in the colony. He probed the circumstances 

that made the rhetoric of rights and liberty imperative for both the colonial regime that employed it to 

legitimize the empire and the African elites who appropriated it to strengthen their demands for 

representation and self-rule. One of the legal instruments that the African elites (most of them 

Journalists), used to draw attention to their demands for representation and self rule, were laws 

pertaining to freedom of the press-a freedom that confers on the press the responsibility to monitor the 

polity. 

The importance of the watch-dog (surveillance) function of the press in the development of a society 

can never be over-emphasized. Iwokwagh and Akurega (2012, p. 249) assent and note that, “Journalists 

play crucial roles in society as purveyors of information. They act as watchdogs of society by calling 

attention to issues that portend danger…and to issues that are germane to development and social 

transformation”. The performance of this role makes the Press to monitor government and public 

servants’ activities to ensure that they live up to acceptable standards for which they hold governance in 

trust for the people (Odoemelam, 2018; Odoemelam et al., 2020). To continue to perform this role, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
22 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

there must be freedom to operate. Part of this freedom has constitutional support: Section 3(1) of 1979 

of the Nigerian constitution states that, “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression 

including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart idea and information without 

interference”. However, this watch-dog role has variously come under government intimidation 

especially from hostile administrations and those who hold public offices and who shy away from 

criticism. Historical evidence shows that prior to the constitutional provisions of Section 3(1) of 1979, 

the British colonial masters set in motion a machinery that marked the beginning of the contestation of 

this freedom. Omu (1968) provides an insight into why the Colonial government took such step: “Their 

newspapers were almost unavoidably highly critical, and colonial administrators sought to control 

them”. But Justice Alatuwara advises: “Those in public office should not be intolerant of criticism. 

Where a writer exceeds the bounds, there should be a resort to the law of libel where the plaintiff must 

of necessity, put his character and reputation in issue. Criticism is indispensable in a free society” 

(Justice Alatuwara, in Nwankwo VS The State, 1985, cited in Akinola, 2014). 

 

2. Method 

To fully understand the phenomenon which this article discusses, the paper was situated within the 

qualitative method. According to Reinard (2001, pp. 1-9), qualitative studies try to describe the human 

condition by using general views of social action. Three techniques were involved in the study: the 

legal research method, the critical paradigm and the historical techniques. The legal method involves 

examining specific court cases (Tang, 2016). For this article, it was sedition related court cases from 

1914 to 2014. The critical paradigm, according to Wimmer and Dominick (2011) draws from models 

used in the humanities. The authors further observe that, critical researchers are interested in such 

concepts as the distribution of power in society and political ideology. In adopting this technique, the 

paper observed patterns of power relations and compared them with colonial governance on the one 

hand, and the notion of communication power, including the motivation to control the press. It also 

examines the ideological framework in normative press laws especially the authoritarian media 

paradigm within which repressive media legislations incubate and thrive. 

The historical method on the other hand, comprised the techniques and guidelines by which historians 

use primary sources and other evidences to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts 

of the past (Wikipedia, 2014). In this regard, we systematically examine documents, case laws and 

judicial precedence with the aim of tracing historical patterns in the use of repressive press laws by 

government agencies. We further compare these patterns with extant or contemporary developments in 

government-press relations. To gather data for these techniques, internet searches and data base 

searches were conducted using key words for each of the concepts.  

To analyse the data from these two techniques, the constant comparative technique was adopted (Glazer 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
23 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

& Strauss, 1967, cited in Wimmer & Dominick, 2011). 

 

3. Justification  

The year 2009 marked One hundred years since the Seditious Offence Ordinance was introduced in 

Southern Nigeria. Meanwhile, the year 2014, marked One hundred years since the amalgamation of the 

Northern and Southern Protectorates as a single unit. This suggests that the Seditious Offence Law is a 

press law that has its origin from British colonial documents and was one of the instruments which the 

colonial masters used to consolidate their hold on the colonies’ affairs and press. That singular event as 

studies show has opened the gate for repressive enthusiasm against the press in Nigeria. This is 

reflected in such media laws as: Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No 4 of 

1984, The Nigerian Media Decree No 59 of 1998, or even the Nigerian Press Council Act No 85 of 

1999, which Omole (2000) and Iwokwagh and Akurega (2012) have argued, is totalitarian in structure 

and responsibility. Several years after these incidences, it has not been made clear how the law of 

sedition still influence media law, and how this influence manifests in government-Press relations. 

Despite the importance of examining the patterns that have emerged within these periods (1909-2009, 

for seditious offence ordinance, and 1914-2014 for amalgamation), and the necessity to compare them 

with current press laws in Nigeria, very few studies have examined these perspectives. Consequently, 

knowledge on this subject-matter remains scanty. It is against this backdrop that this paper adopts a 

mixed qualitative approach to examine the seditious offence ordinance and to analyze its influence on 

extant communication laws in Nigeria. As a result, the study raises the following questions: What has 

been the pattern of legislative instruments on the Nigerian Press since 1909 when seditious offence 

ordinance was enacted? How has the seditious offence ordinance influenced media law in Nigeria? 

How has this influence manifested in government-Press relations? In other words, have subsequent 

governments and their agents, used seditious offence laws as cover for executive arbitrariness. 

 

4. Theoretical Framework 

In this segment, we examine theories that explain the phenomenon of repressive media laws and the 

political milieu that support such structures. In this regard, there is the theory of Power relations and 

the Authoritarian Media theory. 

4.1 Theory of Power Relations 

The theory of Power relations as espoused by Manuel Castells (2009) is very relevant to this discourse. 

Geoff Mulgan, according to Castells theorized the capacity of the state to assume and exercise power 

through the articulation of three sources of power: violence, money, and trust. 

The three sources of power together underpin political power, the sovereign power to impose laws, 

issue commands and hold together a people and a territory... It concentrates force through its armies, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
24 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

concentrates resources through exchequers, and concentrates the power to shape minds, most recently 

through big systems of education and communication that are the twin glues of modern nation states... 

Of the three sources of power the most important for sovereignty is the power over the thoughts that 

give rise to trust. Violence can only be used negatively; money can only be used in two dimensions, 

giving and taking away. But knowledge and thoughts can transform things, move mountains and make 

ephemeral power appear permanent. (Mulgan, 2007, p. 27). According to this theory, communication is 

the vehicle via which thoughts could be transformed and therefore is a portent threat especially when 

such communication power is in the hands of the “enemy”. 

4.2 Authoritarian Media Theory 

The Authoritarian Media theory is part of the normative theories of the press. The original 

understanding of the normative theories of the press, which is found in the seminal works of Siebert et 

al. (1956), focused on the political milieu of nation-states, where the press is expected to assume the 

coloration of the political milieu within which it finds itself (Okoro, Ukonu, & Odoemelam, 2014). The 

Authoritarian Media theory is operationalised as strict control of content by the state and a general lack 

of freedom for the press to criticize state policies (Ostini, undated cited in Okoro, Ukonu, & 

Odoemelam, 2014). The authoritarian media existed to serve the government in power and were 

forbidden to criticize the government or its functionaries (Folarin, 2002). In the main, the theory helps 

to explain the ways in which societal communication rules impinge on mass media structure and 

performance and highlights the consequences of non-convergence between societal principles and mass 

communication principles (Folarin, 2002 cited in Kidafa et al., 2011; cited in Okoro, Ukonu, & 

Odoemelam, 2014). In this scenario, the press is controlled by mostly repressive governments and 

those segments of the press not directly controlled by government are apparently expected by the ruling 

elite to at least maintain neutrality, even in the face of bad governance (Folarin, 2002).  

According to Folarin, the instruments of authoritarian control of the media are many and varied. They 

are employed in various combinations by different authoritarian governments. They include repressive 

legislations (including decrees), heavy taxation, direct or subtle state control of staffing and of essential 

reproduction inputs such as newsprint, even more obviously repressive and objectionable measures 

such as prior censorship and suspension of publications (2002, pp. 27-28). 

These theories (Power Relations and Authoritarian media) are quite axiomatic to the discourse on 

sedition law and its influence on press laws and press freedom in Nigeria. The power relations theory 

provides an explanation to why States may decide to control the press since the press is perceived as 

instrument of power. As Castells argues, to control the press (communication) is to control and 

consolidate power (Castells, 2009). On the other hand, the authoritarian media theory gives insight into 

an understanding of political and social structures that support the control of the media. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
25 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

5. Review of Literature 

5.1 Communication and Power Relations 

To understand why States use repressive laws to gag the press and invariably inhibit freedom of the 

press, it is important to, in brief; examine the theory of power relations that may inform the 

promulgation of the seditious offence ordinance in Southern Nigeria. To do this, we make recourse to 

the works of Manuel Castells titled: Communication Power. According to Castells (2009, p. 1) “power 

is based on the control of communication and information, be it the macro-power of the State and 

media corporations or the micro-power of organizations of all sorts”. We note that the theory of power 

relations is axiomatic to the powerful media effect paradigm which underlined popular press ideological 

stance within the 19th and 20th century. This was manifested in Colonial State policies and decisions that 

point to the fear of the press as subsequent analysis show. 

The British discovered the power of the press in the early 16th century and devised numerous schemes to 

restrict publication. Criticism of the government, called seditious libel, was outlawed. Licensing or prior 

censorship was also common. In addition, the Crown for many years used an elaborate system of patents 

and monopolies to control printing in England (No name, n.d.). This was also extended to her colonies 

like Nigeria where the Crown was consolidating power and communication was seen as a veritable 

instrument of power-obviously a reflection of Castells’ ideology of communication power: 

Power relies on the control of communication, as counter power 

depends on breaking through such control. And mass 

communication, the communication that potentially reaches society 

at large, is shaped and managed by power relationships, rooted in 

the business of media and the politics of the state. Communication 

power is at the heart of the structure and dynamics of society 

(Castells, 2009, p. 3). 

Even though press freedom, as Okoro and Agbo (2003) had posited, is a basic principle of human 

freedom and libertarianism, studies (Aturu, 2010; Odii, 2013) have shown that governments do not feel 

secure when the media seek to express that freedom. Two assumption may explain this phenomenon: The 

first could be gleaned from the arguments of Pool (1973 cited in Okoro & Agbo, 2003; Okoro & 

Odoemelam, 2013; Odoemelam, 2018) that, “no nation will indefinitely tolerate a freedom of the press 

that serves to divide the country and to open the floodgates of criticism against the freely chosen 

government that it leads”. Okoro and Odoemelam on their part, argue that, controls like laws and 

regulations are designed to streamline media practice within the ambit of what is lawfully permissible 

(2013). This perhaps informs the strained inter-course with the Press which most governments in Nigeria 

borrowed from colonial precedence. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
26 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

A jaundiced understanding of the second assumption could be found in the works of Castells (2009, 2010, 

2010, 2010) in which he argued that power lies in the control of communication, in which case, those 

who wish to consolidate power, must control communication. However, the control of communication 

within the context of press freedom, government relations and repressive laws as is found in Nigeria, is in 

sharp contrast with the ideology of consolidation of communication power as espoused by the works of 

Castells. Again, we argue that, the history of press laws like seditious offence ordinance is the history of 

colonialism in British West Africa and particularly in Nigeria. A brief chronological account in the next 

paragraph, of the emergence of seditious offence law in Nigeria, may be helpful in understanding its 

emergence. 

5.2 The Seditious offence Ordinance: A historical Perspective 

Shortly before the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern British protectorates as a unit called 

Nigeria, in the year 1914, by her Majesty’s representative, Lord Frederick Lugard, (an occurrence which 

many people either politically motivated or scholastically informed have called a marriage of strange 

bed-fellows) the foundation for the future repressive experiences of the press in the hands of the 

government, was laid by her Majesty’s Colonial government. The period referred to here, was the year 

1909. In September that year, the Seditious Offence Ordinance came to be part of the ordinances that 

anyone who had the ambition to monitor and criticize the government or those holding such power, may 

have to think through adequately before delving into such lofty enterprise. According to Ogbondah and 

Onyedike (1991) the ordinance was published in September 1909 in the official Gazette and reprinted in 

an extraordinary issue of the government Gazette dated October 1, 1909. The Seditious Offences 

Ordinance under Sections 3 and 5 provided that: 

Whoever by words, either spoken or written... brings or attempts to 

bring into hatred or contempt... the government established by law 

in Southern Nigeria, shall be punished with imprisonment which 

may extend to two years or with a fine or with both imprisonment 

and fine. 

Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or 

report, with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause any officer 

of the Government of Southern Nigeria or any person otherwise in 

the service of His Majesty to disregard or fail in his duty as such 

officer or servant of His Majesty... shall be punished (Gazette,1909; 

cited in Ogbondah & Onydike, 1991, p. 63). 

According to Akinola (2014) and Ogbondah and Onyedike (1991), the law of sedition is a by-product 

of colonialism. As Ogbondah and Onyedike (1991) note, the event that precipitated the 1909 newspaper 

law was Herbert Macaulay’s publication of a pamphlet titled, “Governor Egerton and the Railway”. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
27 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

The pamphlet leveled charges of maladministration against the governor and drew attention to 

allegations of corrupt practices in the Egerton administration. Concern about the effects of unrestricted 

press criticism led to the drafting of a law based on the Indian Penal Code which read inter-alia: 

which would allow reasonable freedom of discussion of government 

policy but which would give the government power to punish 

publications... designed to influence an excitable and ignorant 

populace the bulk of whom are absolutely under the control of 

Headman [sic] and chiefs who themselves have only recently 

emerge from barbarism and are still actuated by the old traditions 

of race (Omu, 1968). 

According to Ogbondah and Onyedike (1991), an examination of colonial documents and statutory 

provisions regulating the Nigerian press reveals that the roots of this press law are clearly found in the 

colonial period of Nigerian journalism history. Fragments of the law can be found in the early 

newspaper laws of Nigeria. One of such laws was the Seditious Offences Ordinance of 1909 which, 

like Decree No. 4 of 1984, criminalized the publication of false reports or statements that exposed a 

government official or the government itself to ridicule or contempt.  

Ogbondah and Onydike (1991), in their paper, Origins and Interpretation of Nigerian Press Laws, 

observed that Public Officers (Protection against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984 was modeled 

after earlier libel and sedition laws and the Newspaper Amendment Act, all of which criminalize free 

speech and opinion directed against those in authority. The study found similarities in the motivations 

behind the promulgation of Decree No. 4 and those behind the earlier libel and sedition laws, i.e., fear 

of those in authority of criticism. This obviously was a direct cultivation and learning from their British 

Lords. 

The above provisions clearly show that Section 1, sub-section (i) of the 1984 press law was modelled 

after the 1909 newspaper law. Section 6 of the Seditious Offences Ordinance empowered police, 

magistrates and district commissioners to check seditious publications in their areas of authority by 

requiring suspected offenders to execute a bond, to be of good conduct for one year or for such a period 

as the police, magistrate or district commissioner would be satisfied with the alleged offender’s 

behaviour and conduct. 

5.3 Empirical Views on Press Freedom and the Laws of Communication 

It seems that even though Nigeria claims to be independent of colonial rule, it is yet to wean itself of the 

harsh orientation against the press. May be it is a case of the proverbial old hen that has refused to learn 

new dancing steps due to years of dancing the old steps. Aturu (2010) avers that, “these laws were 

enacted to repress the press and prevent criticism of the government in power. That is the connecting 

thread… it must never be forgotten that the repressive laws are still being used by the state to harass and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
28 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

intimidate journalists. Present events no doubt continue to point to the fact that laws regarding the press 

are still off-shoot of the colonial styled ruler ship”. 

This was presumed by Ogbondah and Onyedike (1968): 

The 1984 press law merely differed slightly from its colonial 

primogenitor. Apart from this difference, Decree No. 4 of 1984 

provided for the exact terms of punishment as the 1909 colonial 

Seditious Offences Ordinance. Therefore, it could be argued that 

the Public Officers (Protection against False Accusation) Decree 

No. 4 of 1984 was a rebirth of the premier colonial press law.  

Gunilla Faringa has argued in his paper, Press freedom in Africa, that, African journalism first emerged 

in British West Africa. In his words: “the British are generally regarded as having pursued rather 

libertarian ideas of the press” (p. 2). But he was quick to agree with popular opinion among media 

history scholars that, why this was so, was because the early vitality and independence enjoyed by 

these newspapers was because the British had no intention to settle down in their colonies. And even 

their first attempts at publications were gazettes which were elitist in nature. This was in stark contrast 

to the policy of their French counterparts who ruled in accordance to their domestic organizational 

traditions. 

In their seminal work, festus Eribo and William Jong-Ebot, Press freedom and communication in Africa, 

two factors were identified to impinge on press freedom in Africa: internal and external factors. When 

they narrowed their analyses to Nigeria, they noted that, for the Internal factors, ethnicity and 

corruption were culprit; and that for the external factors, colonial influence and laws, according to the 

authors, were conspicuously implicated (Eribo & Jong-Ebot, 1997). The external factors as pointed out 

by these scholars are of significance to this paper, especially as literatures which have examined 

government-press relations vis-à-vis press laws seem to contend (Aturu, 2010; Omu, 1968). 

The views of Omu (1968 cited in the online version 2009) on the origin of press control in Nigeria is quite 

instructive in this regard: “One of the most striking features of the African nationalist movement is the 

great effort that was made to safeguard the freedom of the press. As British subjects, most of whom were 

trained in Britain; educated Africans assumed that they were entitled to enjoy a free press, which was an 

essential ingredient in the British political tradition”. A variety of factors contained official repressive 

enthusiasm, and these provide the key to the relatively small number of press prosecutions and the 

seeming reluctance to enforce press legislation. The situation is illustrated from the history of the early 

nationalist newspaper press in former British West Africa. 

Aturu (2010) has argued that all the laws, whether it was the colonial Seditious Offences Ordinance of 

1909, the precursor of the notorious Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No 4 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
29 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

of 1984 or even the Nigerian Press Council Act recently nullified by the Federal High Court, were 

enacted to repress the press and prevent criticism of the government in power. 

 

6. Results 

6.1 The Relationship between the Seditious Offence Ordinance and other Repressive Press Laws in 

Successive governments in Nigeria 

Perhaps the best way to describe this relationship is captured in the words of Akinola who noted 

inter-alia:  

The sedition law has been a common tool in the hands of 

successive governments in Nigeria to harass the Nigerian press. 

Any scurrilous or scathing criticism of the government is termed 

seditious by the security agents. A thin line of distinction has 

therefore been drawn between fair criticisms and seditious 

comments. This has led to the arraignment of a number of 

journalists for sedition. 

The language and provisions of Section 8, sub-section (i) of Decree No. 4 of 1984 are similar to those 

of Section 3 of the 1909 colonial newspaper law. That section of the 1984 newspaper law provided for 

a prison term of up to two years for convicted offenders of the law - the same provisions found in the 

colonial law (Ogbondah & Onyedike, 1991). 

Ogbondah and Onyedike (1991) have argued that, the 1984 press law merely differed slightly from its 

colonial primogenitor and apart from this difference, Decree No. 4 of 1984 provided for the exact terms 

of punishment as the 1909 colonial Seditious Offences Ordinance. They contend further that the Public 

Officers (Protection against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984 was a rebirth of the premier 

colonial press law. Fragments of the roots of Decree No. 4 can also be found in other colonial statutory 

provisions. One of those statutes was the 1916 Criminal Code which removed the option of fine found 

in the 1909 law for the publication of false reports. In the 1916 Criminal Code, false publication was 

defined as any “statement, rumour or report likely to bring any public officer to disrepute...” (Gazette, 

1916). The same phrase appeared in Section 1, sub-sections (i) and (ii) of the 1984 law enacted to 

control freedom of the press in Nigeria. In addition to this similarity, the draftsmanship of Section 6, 

sub-section (i) of Decree No. 4 of 1984 was exactly the same as that of the 1916 colonial Criminal 

Code in the sense that it provided no option of fine for anyone convicted of disseminating false rumour, 

report or statement In this sense, it can be logically concluded that the origins of Section 9, sub-section 

(i) of the 1984 press law are found in the 1916 Criminal Code of Nigeria (Ogbondah & Onyedike 1991, 

pp. 61-69). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
30 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

7. Discussion  

7.1 Trend Since 1914 

In this segment of the paper, we review court cases dealing with seditious offence and other 

communication laws as well as the judicial judgments that implicate the law of sedition as 

unconstitutional. We also show that, from the comments and decisions of the presiding justices, the 

State and some of its agents use the seditious law arbitrarily against the press. As Akinola (2014), 

Ogbondah and Onyedikeo (1991) and Okoro and Okolie (2004) observed, in the case of the state V the 

Ivory Trumpet Publishing Co, Ltd and 3 Ors (1993) 5 NCLR at 736, decided by Justice Emmanuel 

Araka (then chief Judge of former Anambra State) on January 31, 1983, a newspaper called weekly 

Trumpet with a bias for the defunct National Party of Nigeria (NPN) published in one of its editions 

between August 24 and September 7, 1980 an article entitled. “Just before the Battle” where former 

Anambra State Governor, Chief Jim Nwobodo, was referred to as follows: 

He has been keeping and spending party money without account 

and has in the past three months paid out staff salaries direct 

through the secretary and has refused to pay the Chairman. We 

have called him to give account of election expenses, more 

particularly the foundation membership certificates signed by Dr. 

G.C. Mbanugo, himself as the gubernatorial candidate, myself as 

the Chairman and Mr T.C. Chigbo as the secretary. The state 

executive settled the election dispute in Njikoka on March 5, 1980. 

And the governor supports the dissident minority. He does same in 

the Women’s Wing through this financial emissary. Nearly N2 

million had been paid to him from party sales of Premier Beer. He 

has not paid the money with party account nor rendered statement 

to the Executive (Akinola, 2014). 

The presiding Justice dismissed the charge. In dismissing the charge, Justice Araka held: “Sedition law 

does not punish someone who makes a publication that merely embarrasses the government or the 

governor”. According to him the law merely prohibits a publication “that has a tendency to create 

disorder or disturbance of law and order or causes or has tendency to cause incitement to violence, 

having due regard to the right of free speech guaranteed the citizen under Section 36 (1) of the 

constitution” (Akinola, 2014). 

In another case, the often-quoted cases of DPP V Chike Obi, (1961) IALL NLR 186, Obi was charged 

with sedition in 1960 for distributing a pamphlet entitled: “The people: Facts that you must know” 

wherein he stated inter alia, “Down with the enemies of the people, the exploiters of the weak and 

oppressors of the poor. The day of those who have enriched themselves at the expense of the poor are 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
31 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

numbered. The common man in Nigeria can today no longer be fooled by sweet talk at election time, 

only to be exploited and treated like dirt after the booty of office has been shared among the 

politicians”. Dr. Chike Obi was found guilty of sedition by the High Court, but the Lagos State Chief 

Judge that tried him referred the case to the Supreme Court for the proper interpretation of Section 50 

and 51 of the Criminal Code, vis-à-vis Section 24 of the 1960 independence Constitution of Nigeria 

(Akinola, 2014). Chief Rotimi Williams, counsel to Chike Obi, argued that Sections 50 and 51 of the 

Criminal Code were inconsistent with the provisions of section 24 of the Constitution. According to 

him, “any law, which punishes a person for making a statemenzxt, which brings a government into 

discredit or ridicule or creates disaffection against the government irrespective of whether the statement 

is true of false and irrespective of any repercussion of public order or security, is not a law which is 

reasonably justifiable in a democratic society” (Akinola, 2014). 

In the case of Arthur Nwankwo V State, (1985) 6NCLR 228, greater light was shed on the Sedition 

Law. Chief Nwankwo, a publisher had written a book in 1982 titled “How Jim Nowobodo rules 

Anambra State”, a book that seriously attacked Chief Nwobodo, accusing him of corruption and 

tyranny. Chief Nwankwo was charged with sedition before Justice F.O Nwokedi, then of Onitsha High 

Court and was found guilty and jailed 12 months. At the Court of Appeal, Enugu to which he appealed, 

the Court made up of Justices Alfa Belgore (later of the Supreme Court Justice) and Aikawa, made a 

landmark jurisprudential decision that overturned the verdict of the High Court ruled that Sedition law. 

Section 50 and 51 of the Criminal Code is inconsistent with Section 36 of the 1979 constitution and 

thereof void (Akinola, 2014; Ogbondah & Onyedikeo, 1991; Okoro & Okolie, 2004). 

In his ruling, Justice Olatawura said: “It is my view that the law of sedition, which has derogated from 

the freedom of speech guaranteed under this constitution is inconsistent with the 1979, Constitution, 

more so when this cannot lead to a public disorder, as envisaged under section 41(a) of the 1979 

constitution we are no longer the illiterates or the mob society our colonial masters had in mind when 

the law was promulgated. The safeguard provided under Section 50(2) is inadequate, more so where the 

truth of what is published is no defense” (Akinola, 2014). 

He commented further that, to retain section 51 of the Criminal Code in its present form, that is even if 

not inconsistent with the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution, will be a deadly weapon 

and to be used at will by a corrupt government or tyrant... Let us not diminish from the freedom gained 

from our colonial masters by resorting to laws enacted by them to suit their purpose. The decision of 

the founding fathers of this present constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech must include 

freedom to criticize, should be praised and any attempt to derogate from it except as provided by the 

Constitution must be resisted (Akinola, 2014). 

Akinola notes that this was also in agreement with the view of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v California, 

274 US 357 where he espoused: Those who won our independence believed that public discussion is a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
32 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

political duty and this should be fundamental principle of American government. They recognized the 

risks to which all human constitutions are subject. But they know that order cannot be secured merely 

through, fear of punishment for its infraction, that is hazardous to discourage thoughts, hope and 

imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate, that hate menaces stable 

government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely and propose remedies and 

that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones (Akinola, 2014). 

In a more recent history, precisely on Tuesday April 1, 2014, these headlines emerged on page 47 of The 

Sun newspaper (a daily national newspaper in Nigeria) “T.A. Orji, Ebere Wabara and Sedition”. There 

was also another headline on page 46 which read: “Police slam 10-count charge on hospitalized, The 

Sun Editor… Court issues bench warrant against him, surety… lawyer writes CP”. In the incidence 

reported above, the Abia State Police command (Nigeria), purportedly on the instructions of the 

Governor, T. A. Orji (Governor of Abia state), went to Lagos (Nigeria) and arrested the The Sun Editor 

and drove him back under handcuffs to Abia State where he was arraigned the next day on a 10 court 

charge of sedition against Governor T. A. Orji (Alarape, 2014). In order not to be prejudicial this paper 

will not comment on the outcome of the case. However, we will keenly watch to see how the case will go 

down in the annals of the fight for the freedom of the Press vis-a-vis the law of sedition. 

The opinion of Aturu (2010) that, all the laws, whether it was the colonial Seditious Offences Ordinance 

of 1909, the precursor of the notorious Public Officers (Protection against False Accusation) Decree No 4 

of 1984 or even the Nigerian Press Council Act recently nullified by the Federal High Court, were 

enacted to repress the press and prevent criticism of the government in power seems to be true. These 

repressive laws are still being used by the state to harass and intimidate journalists. We are reminded by 

him Aturu (2010) that, under the so called democracy in the fourth republic, Journalists were charged 

with criminal sedition for publishing stories indicating that presidential jets were not new but refurbished. 

Media houses have been shut down by the Nigerian “democratic” governments because of publishing 

news that embarrassed the state. The closure of Channels Television and Insider Magazine in Nigeria 

recently, demonstrated the fact that qualitatively there is little difference between the so called 

democratic governments and the undemocratic regimes (Aturu, 2010). The case mentioned above of the 

Abia State Governor, T. A Orji, the Abia State Police Command and the Sun Editor, is just one of the 

examples of executive-press clash that borders on media law, specifically the law of sedition. 

 

8. Conclusion 

Other press laws have emerged since the 1909 sedition offence ordinance and these laws seem to be 

replications of the repressive stance of the Law of sedition. It is obvious that government and her 

agencies continue to use sedition law to intimidate Journalist. But one thing seems to be recurrent: the 

judiciary has consistently ruled against the unconstitutionality of the law of sedition. Given these 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
33 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

circumstances, there is need to review the Nigerian constitution and expunge the semblances of 

repressive press laws. In addition, agencies like media law centre should file suits against government 

agencies and agents who use the law of sedition as an umbrella for intimidation of Journalists. 

It has been shown that, press freedom is a basic principle of human freedom and libertarianism; yet, 

governments do not feel secure when the media seek to express that freedom. It arguably true that no 

nation will indefinitely tolerate a freedom of the press that serves to divide the country and to open the 

floodgates of criticism against the freely chosen government that it leads, yet, seditious offence law was 

deliberately intended to silence the press. While measures in such as laws and regulations are designed 

to moderate media practice within the ambit of what is lawfully permissible, there are circumstances in 

which the press abuse such freedom. We had expressed the view elsewhere in this paper that, such 

indiscretion by the press may result in a strained relationship between political power holders and the 

press. At such times, majority of the governments in Nigeria will resort to borrowing a leave from 

colonial precedence. 

 

Acknowledgement 

We acknowledge the contributions of Ternenge Endy-a lecturer at the Department of Mass 

Communication, Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida University, Lapai Niger State, Nigeria, who made 

inputs to the first draft/manuscript of this paper at the conference on Amalgamation on May 4-7, 2014, 

at IBB, University, Lapai. 

 
References 

Akinola, R. (2014, April 14). T.A Orji, Ebere Wabara and Sedition. The Sun Newspaper. Retrieved June 6, 

2014, from http://www.sunonline.com 

Alarape, A. (2014, April 14). Police slam 10-count charge on hospitalized The Sun editor… Court issues 

bench warrant against him, surety… lawyer writes CP. The Sun Newspaper. Retrieved June 6, 2014, 

from http://www.sunonline.com 

Aliede, J. E. (2020). Mass media and Nigerian political class: Partners in progress or strange-bed fellows. 

Idia Journal of Mass Communication, 5, 2020. 

Aturu, B. (2010, September 3). Freedom of the press in Nigeria: Some fundamental issues. Retrieved 

October 5, 2014, from http://www.vanguardngr.com 

Castell, M. (2009). Communication power. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Castells, M. (2010). The power of identity. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Castells, M. (2010). The information age: Economy, society, and culture. United Kingdom: 

Wiley-Blackwell. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
34 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Ibhawoh, B. (2002). Stronger than the maxim: Gun law, human rights and British colonial hegemony in 

Nigeria. Africa. International African Institute, 2(1), 55-83. 

https://doi.org/10.3366/afr.2002.72.1.55 

Iwokwagh, N., & Akurega, M. (2012). Assessment of Nigerian Press Council in regulating journalism 

practice. African Communication Research, 5(2), 249-260. 

Odoemelam, C. C. (2018). Public perception of media performance during coverage of the 2014 

National Conference in Nigeria. ACSPN Book Series. 

Odoemelam, C. C., Uchegbu, K., Airen, M., & Odoemelam, Q. (2020). Influence of broadcast media 

campaigns of political candidates on voters’ behaviour in the 2018 gubernatorial elections in Ekiti 

and Osun State. In Iwokwagh N. et al. (2020), Journalism: Practice, Teaching and Research in 

Nigeria. A festschrift in Honour of Prof Tonnie Iredia. Ahmadu Bello University Press. 

Ogbondah, C., & Onyedike, E. (1991). Origins and interpretation of Nigerian press laws. Africa Media 

Review, 5(2). 

Okoro, N., & Agbo, B. (2003). Writing for the media society. Nsukka: Prize Publishers. 

Omu, F. I. (2009). The dilemma of press freedom in colonial Africa: The West African example. The 

Journal of African History, 9(2), 279-298 (Original work Published 1968). 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021853700008872 

Okoro, N. M., & Odoemelam, C. C. (2013). Mass communication ethics: Concepts, theories and 

principles. In Okoro (Ed.), Contemporary Readings in Media and Communication Studies. Lagos: 

St. Benedette publishers. 

Olatawura, O. (1985). Appeal court Enugu. Authur Nwankwo Vs the State. Enugu State Gazzeted. 

Okoro, N., & Okolie, M. (2004). Mass media, law and politics. Nsukka: Rhyncex. 

Okoro, N., Ukonu, M., & Odoemelam, C. C. (2014). Mass communication theories and their 

applications. Accepted for Publication in the book of reading: Theories in the Social Sciences. 

Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. 

Omole, G. (2000). The Nigerian Press Council, 1992-1998. In Akinfeleye et al. (Eds.), History of 

Nigerian Press Council. Abuja: Nigerian Press Council.  

Ostini, J. (n.d). The Authoritarian theory. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from 

http://epiclawyers.wordpress.com/introduction-to-four-theories-of-the-press 

Kidafa, I., Odoemelam, C., & Elechi, O. (2011). Social media and the challenges of regulation: An 

analytical approach. Paper at The ACCE conference, Covenant University, Ota. 22 September, 

2011. 

Folarin, B. (2002). Theories of mass communication. Nsukka: Afri-Link Books. 

Reinard, A. (2001). Trends in mass communication research. New York: McGraw Hill. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 4, No. 2, 2021 

 

 
35 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Tang, Y. (2016). Laws are a big bell…it will never ring itself! Journalistic Role in China’s First 

Freedom of Information Law. UB Journal of Media Law & Ethics, 5(3/4) (Summer/Fall, 2016). 

Wimmer. R., & Dominick, J. (2011). Mass media research: An introduction (9th ed.). USA: Wadsworth 

Cengage Learning. 

Non-print Internet Materials 

http://books.google.com.ng/books?hl=en&lr=&id=amm2qku9bvuc&oi=fnd&pg=pa51&dq=the+law+o

f+sedition+and+the+press+in+nigeria&ots=fckf6wzfij&sig=mqghss_81kz_xksfiaxoooxyljw&redi

r_esc=y#v=twopage&q=the%20law%20of%20sedition%20and%20the%20press%20in%20nigeri

a&f=true 

www.Wikipedia.com Historical method 


