pages.gif

Criminal Law - Sedition- Criminal Code, section 50-Raising discontent among inhabitants.

The appellant was convicted of printing a seditious libel on the ground (a) that it tended to bring into hatred or contempt the person of the Governor and the Government, and (b) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the inhabitants of Nigeria.

On (a): The article referred to the "Macpherson Constitution" as an .. obnoxious constitution" and by other similar epithets; it also inveighed against the administrative officers of the Government.

On (b): The article warned the public to beware of administrative officers: that they were cleverly disguised enemies of the struggle for freedom, mostly incompetent dictators, openly pretending to be friends but secretly working against nationalists, and therefore most dangerous.

The defence was that it was criticism to remedy defects and was covered by the exceptions in (ii) and (iii) of section 50 (2) which are mentioned in the judgment infra.

Held: (1) Criticism of the Constitution called after the Governor's name could not be held to be bringing the Governor into contempt, nor could inveighing against the administrative officers be held to be bringing the Government into contempt.

(2) The article was designed to whip up hostile feeling against administrative officers; no specific errors' or defects were mentioned for remedy; and its effect was to cause not only disaffection and discontent towards those officers from the people but amongst those officers themselves, who were equally the subjects of Her Majesty and inhabitants of Nigeria.

Appeal by a convicted person: No. 3762.

M. A. Adekunle for the Appellants.

E. Egbuna, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.

The following judgment was delivered:

Coussey, J.A. The two appellants were charged under section 51 (c) of the Criminal Code for 'printing the seditious publication complained of as exhibited in the Information of the Attorney-General.

It will be necessary later to read out portions of the publication. The appellants were convicted by the trial Judge on the ground that the matter tended to bring into hatred or contempt the person of the Governor and the Government of Nigeria as by law established, and that it tended to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the inhabitants of Nigeria. The appeal of the second appellant, who was charged as Editor or Associate Editor of the newspaper, has been withdrawn.

As to the first appellants, The African Press Ltd., they appeal on three grounds, namely that the article complained of was not seditious by virtue of the tact that it tended to bring into contempt the person of the Governor or the Government of Constitution of Nigeria; secondly, that the article cannot -De interpreted to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects or the inhabitants of Nigeria, and thirdly, that the learned Judge erred in holding that the publication- [pg 57] is not covered by the exceptions (ii) and (iii) of section 50 (2) of the Criminal Code. For the moment, reading the publication, it is sufficient to say that in our opinion the article does not bring into contempt the person of the Governor as found by the learned trial Judge. It is true that the Macpherson Constitution is referred to in two places in the article and it is true that it is referred to as an .• obnoxious constitution ", and by other epithets of that nature, but it is the lot of any man placed in the position of the Governor to have measures initiated during his regime marked with his name and it is going too far, in our opinion, to hold that his person is brought into contempt and ridicule merely by the fact that his name is coupled with a critical expression of a Bill which he presents to the Country. Nor can it be said that the article brings into contempt the Government of Nigeria as by law established, merely because it inveighs against the Administrative Officers of the Government.

As to the other ground upon which the learned trial Judge found the publication to be seditious, namely, that it tends to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the inhabitants of Nigeria, this Court has no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the learned Judge. It is argued on this appeal that the publication comes within exceptions (ii) and (iii) of section 50 (2) which provides that a publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends to point out errors or defects in the Government or Constitution of Nigeria as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects, or to persuade Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Nigeria as by law established. Now the article in question warns the public to beware of the Administrative Officers. It proceeds that, .. they are at the same time most potent and most cleverly disguised enemies of your struggles for freedom. They are, with a few exceptions, incompetent, narrow minded, arrogant and contemptuous. In spite of ocular demonstrations to the contrary, they continue to imagine that you are not fit even for the bogus constitution that is now being offered you. They are looking forward rather feverishly to your failures in the future and they are ready, not only to exploit such failures to perpetuate their petty dictatorship, but also to contribute to them by subtle devices. At the moment, as far as it lies in their power, they are working like moles in the dark to subvert the possibility of the nationalists among you getting into power. As they do these cowardly acts in secret, they pretend openly to be your friends, that is why they are most dangerous. And that is why I am warning you against them".

Can it be said that this article is designed to raise the national aspirations of the people? In my view it cannot. Its only purpose is to attack persons who are equally subjects of Her Majesty and inhabitants of Nigeria and its effect is to cause not only disaffection and discontent towards Administrative Officers by the people of Nigeria, but it is equally capable of causing discontent and disaffection amongst Administrative Officers who are, in their view, endeavouring to the best of their ability to assist in the good Government of Nigeria.

We are unable to accept the submission of Mr Adekunle that the article intended only to make suggestions to remedy defects in the administration. If that had been the intention of the article, the specific errors and defects which were intended to be remedied would be pointed out and suggestions would be made for their correction. On the other hand, the article is clearly designed to whip up hostile feeling against Administrative Officers. In our opinion, therefore, it comes clearly within the definition of section 50 (2) (c). For these reasons, the appeal must be dismissed.