Our Reporter, Abuja
Media Rights Agenda (MRA) and the International Press Centre (IPC) have filed a formal appeal against a judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja which dismissed their suit seeking to compel the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to investigate former Ebonyi State Governor, David Umahi, over alleged rights violations against journalists in 2021.
This was disclosed in press statement issued on Friday by Idowu Adewale, Communications Officer, on behalf of MRA.
In a Notice of Appeal filed by their counsel, Mr. Noah Ajare, at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, the two media-focused non-governmental organizations expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling delivered by Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu. The judge held that MRA and IPC failed to provide credible evidence that their petition was served on the CCB and its Chairman. He also questioned their legal standing, suggesting they may be “crying more than the bereaved,” since the journalists directly affected had not submitted a complaint to the Bureau.
The appeal stems from a lawsuit filed by the groups on November 10, 2021, following their joint petition to the CCB on April 24, 2021, and a follow-up letter on October 21, 2021, which the Bureau allegedly failed to act upon. In their suit, MRA and IPC sought a mandamus order compelling the CCB to investigate their complaint against Mr. Umahi, who as Governor was accused of ordering the arrest of a journalist and imposing a lifetime ban on two others from government premises.
In the four grounds of appeal, MRA and IPC are urging the appellate court to overturn the High Court’s decision delivered on November 29, 2024.
They argued that the court erred in law by holding that they did not prove service of their petition on the CCB and its Chairman, despite presenting evidence including email correspondence and courier documentation (Waybill No. 7186272155) indicating that service occurred on October 21, 2021. They said the court overlooked relevant supporting documents and testimonies.
On the second ground, the appellants contended that the court misdirected itself by denying them locus standi. They asserted that as NGOs committed to defending media rights and freedom of expression, they have a duty and the legal standing to act in the public interest on behalf of journalists and the media community.
The third ground of appeal highlighted what the appellants described as the court’s failure to address core public interest concerns related to freedom of expression, transparency, and government accountability. They faulted the court’s reliance on procedural technicalities over the substance of their claims.
In the fourth ground, MRA and IPC argued that the court improperly dismissed their case without examining whether the CCB had in fact defaulted on its constitutional duty to investigate their allegations. They maintained that the court wrongly concluded that insufficient proof of service invalidated their entire case, thereby disregarding the legal obligation of public institutions to respond to legitimate complaints.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
