The Nation Newspaper

Tag: AIT

  • AIT’s unfair tackle on Garba Shehu

    SIR: An attempt by the Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Mallam Garba Shehu to do a post mortem of the March 2015 Presidential election and the campaigns leading to it has unexpectedly elicited a negative reaction from DAAR Communications Plc, owners of AIT.

    In what many Nigerians consider to be an overreaction by the broadcast house to an appraisal of the events that took place during the presidential contest between President Muhammadu Buhari of the All Progressive Congress and former President Goodluck Jonathan of the PDP, DAAR Communications Plc decided to denigrate the presidential spokesman.

    Though the campaigns are over, yet it is in the realm of scholarship for us to scrutinize the performance of the media during the period under review. The reason why such issues should be put in perspective is to draw the attention of the media to the need to ensure balance in their reportage and coverage.

    It is undeniable that the PDP government used enormous government resources including federal government owned media organs like NTA, Radio Nigeria, VON and the privately owned media like AIT to unleash hate campaigns against the Buhari candidature.

    To the eternal credit of Garba Shehu and his team, they were able to prove to Nigerians the failure of PDP government over the last 16 years and hence the need for a change. At every turn, PDP and its agents made strident efforts using media partners like AIT to divert the attention of Nigerians, yet Garba and his team were never swayed, and neither did they waiver. There was no doubt that Nigerians were sick and tired of the malfeasance in government, and insisted on realizing the “change” agenda. To most Nigerians, PDP had turned into a “malignant tumour” in their lives and therefore needed to pack and go.

    There is therefore no justification whatsoever for DAAR Communications Plc to condescend to the inglorious level of ascribing innuendoes on the person of Mallam Shehu Garba.

    For instance, it is unbecoming for the company to describe legitimate requests for discounts in placing advertisements as “unusual requests for discounts”. It is common knowledge that discounts on advertisements vary from medium to medium and in real business transactions which advertisements fall under, there is no cap to the level or amount of discount a client can request. So, what is unusual about normal requests for discounts?

    The prerogative of acceptance or refusal for such request lies with the media outfit. In any event, APC Presidential Campaign was hamstrung in terms of funding, and any avenue through which savings could be made was outrightly welcome. In contrast, PDP had a limitless budget for the Presidential campaign, but what mattered to Nigerians most was to be rescued from a system enmeshed in crass opportunism, impunity and drudgery in governance.

    In the aftermath of the campaign, it is expected that we bury the hatchet, and join hands with the Buhari administration to restore Nigeria to its past glory. As Nigerians and foreigners alike acknowledge that the future of Nigeria is bright, it behoves all stakeholders to put all hands on deck at ensuring that they don’t rock the boat, and that the ship of state continues to navigate progressively. This is not the time for bickering, but a period for sober reflection and introspection.

     

    • Chukwudi Enekwechi,

    Abuja.

     

  • Youth group slams AIT over Ameachi hate documentary

    Youths, under the aegis of Ikwerre Youth Movement (IYM), in Rivers State, yesterday called on the management of DAAR Communication Limited, the owner of African Independent Television (AIT) and Raypower Radio to discontinue a documentary against former governor of Rivers State Rotimi Amaechi.

    The youths accused DAAR Communication of instigating crisis between two Ikwerre sons (Wike and Amaechi) by allowing their station to air the documentary, saying the documentary is capable of creating war among Ikwerre people.

    Rising from an emergency meeting yesterday in Port Harcourt, IYM chairman Emohua Local Government Area, Hon. Lucky Worluh, who spoke on behalf other leaders from the four Ikwerre speaking local government areas of the state, said DAAR Communication must steer clear of Rivers politics.

    Worluh reminded the management of DAAR Communication that they are yet to apologize to President Muhammadu Buhari and Nigerians on the hate documentary aired against the president before and during the election.

    He described documentary as a calculated attempt by Amaechi’s detractors to bring him down.

  • Court adjourns Tinubu’s suit against AIT till September 30

    A Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has adjourned hearing in the N150 billion libel suit by former Lagos State Governor Asiwaju Bola Tinubu against African Independent Television (AIT) till September 30.

    Justice Iyabo Akinkugbe adjourned the matter yesterday for further direction on the court processes served by counsel to both parties in the suit.

    Tinubu instituted the suit against Daar Communications Plc, owners of AIT, for airing a documentary titled:  “The Lion of Bourdillon”.

    He alleged that the documentary was libellous and aimed at tarnishing his image.

    Tinubu’s counsel Mr. Ademola Adesiyun, in a motion dated June 26, 2015, asked the court for extension of time to file a reply to AIT’s statement of defence and counter-claim.

    At the resumed hearing  yesterday, AIT counsel  Mr. Jeffery Kadiri told the court that he had filed pleadings in the matter.

    In the counter-claim, AIT listed its chairman emeritus, Chief Raymond Dokpesi, and seven others as witnesses to testify against Tinubu.

    Others listed to testify are Namure Edoimioya, Chief Medan Tenke, Ajibola Adewusi, Olumide Idowu, Chief Stanley Odidi, Nwabueze, an engineer, and Dr Stanley Bassey.

    Dokpesi, in his statement on oath, averred that Tinubu’s claim was founded on a non-existent ground because the said documentary was not titled: “The Lion of Bourdillon”, but “Unmasking the Real Tinubu”.

    He averred that the documentary, in his honest opinion, was not false and was not aired out of malice to the person of the claimant.

    Dokpesi said AIT, as a member of the fourth estate of the realm, was empowered by Section 22 of the Constitution to at all times hold those in government accountable and responsible to the people.

    He claimed that the content of the documentary were facts, which had been in the public domain for over two decades.

    According to him, these were published independently prior to the broadcast and  had remained unchallenged till date.

     

  • Court adjourns Tinubu’s N150b suit against AIT

    Court adjourns Tinubu’s N150b suit against AIT

    A Lagos High Court, Ikeja, on Wednesday adjourned till June 30 the N150 billion libel suit filed by former Governor of Lagos State, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, against Daar communications, owners of African Independent Communication.

    The trial judge, Justice Iyabo Akinkugbe, adjourned the suit to enable Tinubu’s counsel respond to the counter-claim filed by AIT.

    Tinubu, who is also the National Leader of All Progressives Congress, had instituted the N150 billion suit against AIT for allegedly peddling false accusations against his person in the documentary titled: “Lion of Bourdilion.”

    The ex-governor said the documentary was politically sponsored to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of the populace.

    Justice Akinkugbe had in April 1 granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the AIT from further airing of the documentary, pending the determination of the libel suit.

    Counsel to AIT, Jeffery Kadiri, informed the court that the defendant had filed a counter-claim which had been served on the claimant.

    In his response, Tinubu’s counsel, Ayodele Adesanmi, said the process was served on the claimant two days ago, adding that he needed time to respond to it.

    Adesanmi, therefore, asked the court for an adjournment to enable him respond to the defendant’s counter-claim.

    The trial judge Justice Akinkugbe granted his request for an adjournment and fixed a new date for hearing on the matter.

  • Dokpesi, seven others to testify in Tinubu’s N150b suit against AIT

    Dokpesi, seven others to testify in Tinubu’s N150b suit against AIT

    THE Chairman of DAAR Communication Plc, High Chief Raymond Dokpesi, and seven others have been listed as witnesses to testify in a N150 billion libel suit filed by All Progressives Congress (APC’s) National Leader Asiwaju Bola Tinubu against the African Independent Television (AIT).

    The former Lagos State governor had instituted a N150 billion suit against the DAAR Communications Plc, owners of AIT, before an Ikeja High Court over alleged false accusations in a documentary titled: “Lion of Bourdillon”.

    The matter is before Justice Iyabo Akinkugbe of Ikeja High Court.

    Others listed as witnesses are Namure Joy Edoimioya, Chief Medan Tenke, Ajibola Adewusi, Olumide Idowu, Chief Stanley Odidi, Engr. Nwabueze and Dr. Stanley Bassey.

    Tinubu is claiming that the documentary was politically sponsored to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of the populace.

    Justice Akinkugbe had on April 1, 2015 granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the AIT from further airing the documentary, pending the determination of the libel suit.

    But, in a statement of defence and counter-claim filed by AIT before the court yesterday, the defendant denied each and every claim of the applicant in the amended statement of claim.

    AIT claimed that the claimant/applicant founded his entire claims on a non-existent ground or cause of action because contrary to his (Tinubu) claim, the documentary aired by its media outfit is not titled: “The Lion of Bourdillon”, but “Unmasking the Real Tinubu”.

    AIT, in its statement of defence, also averred that the documentary, in its honest opinion, was not false and neither was it aired out of malice against the person of the claimant.

    It averred further that as the fourth estate of the realm, it was empowered by Section 22 of the Constitution to at all times, hold those in government accountable and responsible to the people of Nigeria.

    “The defendant avers that further to paragraphs 4 and 5 above, that it is empowered by Section 22 of the Constitution as the fourth estate of the realm, to at all times, hold those in government accountable and responsible to the people of Nigeria, and to be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people to ensure that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group, and that there is equal opportunity for every Nigerian to secure adequate means of livelihood and empowerment without discrimination.

    “The defendant avers that the claimant is a former public office holder, whose activities before, during and after leaving office are always in the public domain for proper scrutiny, in accordance with the intendment of the framers of the Nigerian Constitution.

    “The defendant also avers that being in the business of information dissemination, it is aware that the contents of the said documentary are not news to many Nigerians, a fact very well known to the claimant, who took no steps to correct the information embedded in the print media and the social media platforms for years. For example, the pseudonym, “Lion of Bourdillon”, by which the claimant has come to be known, addressed and associated with, over the years, was not given to him, or coined by the defendant”, it averred.

    According to AIT, the said documentary, which it did not authored, was only aired for a given short period of time and was last aired on March 6, 2015, when it got wind that the defendant had filed a libel suit.

    Attached to the statement of defence and counter-claim was a list of documents which it said would be relied upon and which comprises links to online publications.

    Dokpesi, in his statement on oath, also claimed that the defendant merely exercised its constitutional, statutory and social responsibility to inform, educate, entertain and provide a platform for national discourse, to all shades of opinion and political persuasion.

    He said the documentary aired by the defendant under Section 22 of the Constitution merely states that the claimant has breached some portions of the said fundamental objectives, and directive principles of state policy contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution and which the defendant is legally mandated to ensure the observance of, and same was not maliciously or falsely made against the claimant.

     

  • GMB’s ‘ban’ on AIT

    GMB’s ‘ban’ on AIT

    Penultimate Monday, all hell broke loose, following news of a ban on AIT from the coverage of the activities of the President-elect, General Muhammadu Buhari (GMB). Coming on the very day which was this year’s World Press Freedom Day, the widespread consternation at the decision was understandable. Certainly it couldn’t have been more ill-timed – and wrong-headed – even if, as the president-elect’s spokesman, Malam Garba Shehu, said, it was a gross misrepresentation of presidency-elect’s decision.

    AIT, Shehu said, was never really banned. The station, he said, was only asked to “step aside”, pending the resolution of some “security and ethical issues”. He did not spell out what those security and ethical issues were. He probably could not spell out the former, security not being under his purview, but he did not need to spell out the latter for anyone to know that there can be no love lost between the station and the president-elect, given the station’s media campaign against him, which is probably the most scurrilous in Nigeria’s history.

    Still it was wrong for anyone to have asked AIT to even “step aside,” never mind being banned. First, it was not AIT alone that maligned or was shamelessly one-sided against the president-elect. The Federal Government owned NTA, which claims a larger audience than the AIT, was no better. In a sense it was worse; as a publicly funded broadcaster it was not its prerogative to be partisan in any way. But as the Chair of the Commonwealth Observer Group, Dr. Bakili Maluzi, said in a statement on March 30, “the flagship nightly television news on the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) channel was completely dominated by reports of the incumbent party’s campaign rallies.”

    NTA apart, the News Agency of Nigeria, was also highly partisan. During the campaigns its managing director, Ima Niboro, issued instructions against running any positive stories about the general and his party, the All Progressives Congress. And when its editor-in-chief, Isaac Ighure, defied his boss and insisted on doing his job professionally, he was simply shunted sideways into the marketing department, where he is still languishing. Not surprisingly he has since been replaced by Lawal Ado Daura. Clearly, Daura got the job not simply because he was qualified, which he was; he got it more because he comes from the same town as the president-elect. Talk of shameless toadying-up to the new powers that be!

    The other two Federal Government owned media, FRCN (Radio Nigeria) and the Voice of Nigeria, behaved much better than NTA and NAN. But this was no thanks to the Federal authorities who put a lot of pressure on their managements to be just as partisan and malicious. By law VON does not carry adverts but the management of Radio Nigeria which does was able to reject the notorious hate documentary against the general carried by AIT and NTA and which came to define much of this year’s media election campaign.

    The independent press may have fared better than the broadcast media, but the conduct of the newspapers too was far from ideal, especially when it came to carrying adverts that were potentially, and in some cases, actually, defamatory. Again, to quote the chair of the Commonwealth Observer Group, “Many newspapers published ‘wrap advertisements’ which looked like normal front pages, but were in fact paid-for advertising masquerading as news.”

    Given the generally poor showing of the media in the coverage of this year’s election, asking AIT alone to “step aside,” no matter how briefly and for whatever reason, was clearly selective. However, there is an even more important reason than this selectivity for why the decision was wrong. And this is the need to respect our Constitution and our laws.

    As a veteran journalist, I have no doubt in my mind that AIT behaved in a most irresponsible and unprofessional manner in running its campaigns against General Buhari and I suspect most reasonable people will agree with my view. Certainly the general is highly unlikely to disagree. But in a democracy such as we aspire to, only the courts have the power to punish such irresponsible and unprofessional conduct as AIT’s, to the extent that the courts agree that the misconduct is defamatory.

    Not surprisingly, Raymond Dokpesi, the proprietor of the station, has said he does not see anything wrong with how his station has behaved. “Daar Communications,” he said in reaction to the purported ban of his station, “is a commercial entity and therefore, reserves the right to run anything it considers worthy of being televised…What is obviously clear is the fact that AIT believes that the historical information about the President-elect that was run was factually correct. Nothing was done to defame him or impinge on his character or integrity.”

    I believe most people who have watched AIT’s coverage of the elections, in particular its hate-filled documentary on the general which the station played again and again, would be shocked at the brazenness of Dokpesi’s defence of a documentary that was so riddled with half-truths and barefaced lies about the general’s person, his religious belief, his past, his late wife and daughter.

    Dokpesi is entitled to believe what he wants. But he should know that Daar being a commercial entity does not entitle him to defame anyone. And the only lawful way to teach him that lesson is not to bar him from doing his business anywhere but to take him to court.

    Happily, the president-elect has shown that he has put his old dictatorial ways well behind him; he said he was not aware of the ban and once he got to know about it, he instructed that AIT’s accreditation be restored immediately.

    The president-elect has clearly passed his first test as a born-again democrat. It is now up to him to decide whether or not to go to court to teach AIT the lesson that a democracy is no licence for defaming anyone.

     

    Re: Jega’s forbearance and Awo’s curse

    Sir,

    In as much I enjoyed the summary of Nigeria’s electoral history by you (April 22), you were not factual by claiming that people regarded the March 28 and April 11 elections as the most credible in Nigeria what with massive riggings in Kano, Katsina, Jigawa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Delta and written results!

    People just allowed ‘the sleeping dogs to lie.’ While we keep improving, the 1993 elections remain the most fair, free and CREDIBLE before the CABAL struck.

    Lanre Oseni, +2347064181043.

     

    Sir,

    The 2015 presidential elections were truly not free and fair. The votes turned out in Southsouth and Southeast were all bloated in favour of PDP. Without this electoral heist, APC’s margin of victory could have been about 10 million.

    Barr. Ngozi Ogbomor, +2348033397362.

     

    Sir,

    Your article on Jega’s forbearance and Awo’s curse refers. Please be informed that Awo did not place a curse on Nigeria. He only said that if Nigerians should continue to pervert democracy this generation might not know true democracy. That is a conditional statement not a curse.

    While I wish Nigeria well in her effort to consolidate democracy, it is no yet Eureka, for democracy is a journey not a destination.

    Dr. Ade Adebisi, Akure. +2348034703653.

     

    Re: Tamuno: the passing of a great historian

    Sir,

    Someone should say well done to you for your piece on Tamuno last week. For reasons I can’t quite understand, I haven’t enjoyed an article like this one in a very long time.

    Hector Collins Decker, +2348037172869.

     

    Sir,

    Professor Abdullahi Smith’s initial name was Henry Frederick Charles Smith not Robert as stated in your piece.

    +2348035067192.

     

    Sir,

    Your Wednesday’s column refers. It was not Joseph Smith who became Abdullahi Smith but H. F. C. Smith.

    +2348093468672.

     

    Sir,

    That was a wonderful piece on an extraordinary man. But late Professor Tamuno was from Okrika not Ijaw.

    +2348129146188.

     

    Sir,

    I thought Tamuno was a Kalabari name and not Ijaw. Please confirm.

    +2348035007010.

     

    You are right. He was Kalabari, not Ijaw. However, the two, along with Okrika, are kith and kin.

     

    Sir,

    Your piece, “Tamuno: the passing of a great historian,” was not only a tribute to the demised historian, but a concise account on development of historiography and the roles of selected historians in the evolution of African historiography. Factually, Tamuno deserves all the praises you showered on him for his service to humanity.

    However, my reservation was on the mix-up on the roles of the duo of Dike and Biobaku in the evolution of African historiography. As a matter of fact, I think there is a ploy to downplay the role of Biobaku. You refereed to Biobaku as one of the foot soldiers of Dike in Ibadan. This is far from the truth. Dike and Biobaku were contemporaries. Like Dike, he studied abroad and not at the University College, Ibadan, as you stated.  Biobaku studied at University of Exeter, England (1944-45), Trinity College, University of Cambridge (1945-47), and Institute of Historical Research, London (1951-52).

    As a matter of fact, Dike’s pioneering work on African historiography, Trade and Politics in Niger Delta was published a year ahead of Biobaku’s Egba and their Neighbours published in 1957. All others you mentioned built on the foundation laid by both Dike and Biobaku.

    I think Biobaku was a member of the Ibadan school not because he studied or lectured at UI, but because he aligned with the tradition of the school in his works. I think the only time he worked in UI was as a director of the Institute of African Studies. He was vice chancellor at O AU and Unilag at different times.

    Adewuyi Adegbite, +2347013065440.

  • Still on the matter of Buhari and AIT

    “If it were left on me to decide whether we should have a government without Newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” – Thomas Jefferson

    The above quotation from Thomas Jefferson, a former President of the United States, underscores the importance of the media in a democracy. The media is the lifeline of any nation. It provides not only information on what may affect the normal human being in his day-to-day functioning, but also by other features that keep him informed of developments, national and international. In Nigeria, the press has always been in the forefront of the nation’s democratic struggle. From the colonial era to the post-independent era, the press has been a major rallying point for the people. It is to its credit that it has outlived many anti-people governments, though with many wounds and scars. In the dark days of the military, when men of courage and honour were few, the press, it was, that fought the military to a standstill.

    Considering its critical role of the press in a democracy, many have questioned the recent barring of African Independent Television, AIT, from covering the activities of Nigeria’s President-elect, Muhammadu Buhari. Bearing in mind how the press fared during his reign as a military dictator, many have thought and, perhaps, rightly so, that this might be the sign of things to come in the yet to be inaugurated Buhari led government. It is, however, heartwarming that the President-elect and, indeed, his political party, the All Progressive Congress, APC, have both dissociated themselves from the alleged ban. According to a statement from General Buhari, he was neither consulted nor informed about the AIT barring, and only became aware of the matter after the public uproar it generated.

    While one welcomes General Buhari and his party’s swift response to the AIT imbroglio, it is however, important o stress that gagging the press would not be in the best interest of any individual, organisation or government. Any attempt to gag the press is an affront on democracy. Restricting the press from performing its constitutional duty is completely against the spirit of liberty and the rule of law in a democracy. It would result in a slide into anarchy. If the media has impeded on the right of any individual or organisation in the discharge of its duty, there are constitutional ways of dealing with such. Taking recourse to constitutional means in addressing such would further help to strengthen democracy.

    However, in as much as the media plays a crucial role as the watchdog of the society and by implication the preserver of democracy, it behooves on the media to adhere strictly to ethical rules and conducts in the discharge of its functions. In a democracy, it is essential that the media exercises its duties with utmost responsibility. Democracy can only flourish with a responsible media. Being the watchdog of the society places huge responsibility on the media in terms of objectivity and non partisanship. Though, it is the right of every Nigerian to support a political party, but the media must not be seen to operate in manners that depict partiality. When this happens, democracy would be endangered.

    It is, perhaps, in this respect that one could probably affirm that the AIT erred. It is, for instance, a well know fact that the proprietor of AIT, Dr. Raymond Dopkesi, is a card carrying member of the ruling People Democratic Party, PDP. It was even alleged by the Edo State Governor, Comrade Adams Oshiomole, that Dopkesi, in the company of some soldiers during the presidential election, “attacked the electorate and disrupted elections at Auchi once they saw that the result being announced so far favoured APC and favoured Buhari”. Though, the media mogul has come out to deny the allegation, it has however cast aspersion on the reliability of his media organisation, AIT. Many have labeled the AIT has a PDP megaphone based on its perceived  biased reportage of political developments in the country and the scratchy documentaries it beamed on the President –elect, General Buhari. As it has been earlier emphasised, Dr Dopkesi is backed by the constitution to support any political party of his choice. The snag, however, is that it would be unprofessional and immoral to turn a national network such as AIT into a propaganda platform of any of the country’s political parties. This is against the ethics of journalism.

    The documentary aired on the AIT against General Buhari has quite a number of wrong information. For instance, the AIT documentary claimed that it was the Buhari administration that expelled Ghanaians from Nigeria. The truth, however, is that it was the Shehu Shagari administration that actually repatriated Ghanaians and other foreigners from Nigeria. Also, the issue of Gloria Okon disappearing under Buhari’s administration was also false as she disappeared under General Ibrahim Babangida regime .Also, the assertion that Fela’s mother died under Buhari was false because she died after Kalakuta republic was attacked by ‘unknown soldiers’  during Obasanjo’s government in 1978. One also wonders what the death of two of Buhari’s daughters has to do with  Buhari’s ability to rule.

    Expectedly, Dr. Dopkesi has come out in defence of his organization’s role in the just concluded general elections with a justification that the Daar Communications, owners of AIT, is a commercial entity and therefore reserves the right to run anything it considers worthy of being televised. He said there is also a right of response available to anyone who feels strongly about any matter broadcast by the station. He said: “What is obviously very clear is the fact that AIT believes that the historical information about the President-elect that were ran, were factually correct. Nothing was done to defame him or impinge on his character or integrity.” But then, based on the several inaccurate information contained in the said documentary, it is certain that Dr. Dopkesi was only being economical with the truth.

    The Code of Ethics guiding the practice of journalism in Nigeria demands that every journalist to ensure a strict adherence to the highest levels of ethics and professionalism in carrying out their duties. One of the main responsibilities of the press is to present and defend the truth as every scientific structure can only be sustained by the truth.  When the media trades in lies and half truths, it only does so to the peril of the society. It is the sacred duty of the media to have a perception and a goal of standard morality and ethical revolution if its performance is to have the expected impact on the society it serves. This is the expectation of the citizenry, especially where morality and professionalism are allowed to dictate the pace.

     

    • Ogunbiyi is of the Features Unit, Ministry of Information and Strategy, Alausa, Ikeja.

  • Court restrains AIT from running hate documentary on Tinubu

    Court restrains AIT from running hate documentary on Tinubu

    A Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has  granted an interim order restraining the Africa Independent Television (AIT) from broadcasting a documentary, titled: Lion of Bourdillion,  about former Lagos State Governor Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    Justice Olamide Akinkugbe of the high court granted the restraining order yesterday while ruling on an ex parte motion filed by the former governor through his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

    The court order will subsist pending the hearing and determination of the interlocutory application filed by the applicant.

    Asiwaju Tinubu, who is also the national leader of the All Progressives Congress (APC), had, through his lawyer, instituted a N150 billion suit against AIT for airing the documentary.

    The applicant alleged that the documentary was libellous and aimed at tarnishing his image.

    The APC national leader sought an order of interim injunction restraining AIT, whether by itself, agents, privies and or other persons from producing or continuing to broadcast, airing, or continuing to reproduce the documentary.

    The applicant also sought to restrain the television station from continuing to broadcast the documentary, which it started airing on March 1, 2015, and had been repeating same daily, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

    The motion noted that damages would not adequately compensate the applicant/claimant if the ex-parte order was not granted and prayed that the rest of the suit may be extinguished if the ex-parte order was not granted.

    It stated that there was real, imminent and urgent threat and danger of continuing to decimate the person and integrity of Tinubu by AIT by continuing to air the “offensive” broadcast if the ex-parte motion was not granted.

    When Olanipekun sought to move the interlocutory application, counsel to AIT Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) objected.

    Ozekhome told the court that he needed time to respond to the application.

    He told the court that his earlier reply was to the suit initially filed by Dr. Tunji Abayomi on behalf of Asiwaju Tinubu.

    Consequent upon this development, Olanipekun made an oral application in which he prayed the court to grant an interim order restraining AIT from further airing the contentious documentary.

    Although Ozekhome objected, Justice Akinkugbe upheld the application.

    The judge said: “The defendant is hereby restrained from further airing, publishing or disseminating and broadcasting the documentary, Lion of Bourdilion, pending the determination of the interlocutory application.”

    She adjourned the matter to March 20, 2015, for argument on the interlocutory application.

     

  • Court restrains AIT from broadcasting documentary on Tinubu

    Court restrains AIT from broadcasting documentary on Tinubu

    A Lagos High court sitting in Ikeja on Monday  granted an interim order restraining the Africa Independent Television (AIT) from broadcasting a documentary titled “‘Lion of Bourdillion”  on a former Lagos state Governor, Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu.

    Justice Olamide Akinkugbe of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja granted the restraining order while ruling on an exparte motion filed by the former governor through his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).

    The court order would subsist pending the hearing and determination of the interlocutary application filed by the applicant.

    Asiwaju Tinubu who is also the National Leader of the All Progressive Congress (APC) had through his lawyer, Chief Olanipekun, instituted N150billion suit against AIT for airing the documentary.

    The applicant had alleged that the documentary was libellous and aimed at tarnishing his image.

    The National Leader of the APC had through an ex-parte motion sought an order of interim injunction restraining AIT whether by itself, agents, privies and or other persons from producing or continuing to broadcast, airing, or continuing to reproduce a documentary.

    The applicant also sought to restrain the TV station from continuing the broadcast of the documentary, which it started airing on March 1, 2015 and had been repeating same daily, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice dated March 5, 2015.

    The motion further noted that damages would not adequately compensate applicant/claimant if the ex-parte order was not granted and prayed that the rest of the suit may be extinguished if the ex-parte order was not granted.

    It stated that there was real, imminent and urgent threat and danger of continuing to decimate the person and integrity of Tinubu by AIT by continuing to air the “offensive” broadcast if the ex-parte motion was not granted.

    Chief Olanipekun sought to move the interlocutory application when hearing commenced on the application he filed on behalf of his client, Asiwaju Tinubu.

    But counsel to AIT, Chief Mike Ozekhome(SAN) objected to the moving of the application.

    Ozekhome told the court that he needed time to respond to the application.

    He told the court that his earlier reply was to the suit initially filed by one Dr. Tunji Abayomi on behalf of Asiwaju Tinubu.

    Consequent upon this development, Chief Olanipekun then made an oral application in which he prayed the court to grant an interim order restraining AIT from further airing the contentious documentary.

    Although Ozekhome objected to the application, Justice Akinkugbe upheld the application.

    The trial judge said, “the defendant is hereby restrained from further airing, publishing or disseminating and broadcasting the documentary, “Lion of Bourdilion”, pending the determination of the interlocutory application.”

    She thereafter adjourned the matter to  March 20, 2015 for argument on the interlocutory application.

  • Court restrains NTA, AIT over anti-Osinbajo documentaries

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained Daar Communications Plc and the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) from broadcasting any video documentaries against All Progressives Congress (APC) vice-presidential candidate Prof Yemi Osinbajo (SAN).

    Justice John Tsoho made the order yesterday following an ex-parte application by Osinbajo.

    Daar Communications (owners of African Independent Television (AIT), NTA and the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) are the respondents.

    Justice Tsoho ordered that status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s motion on notice for interlocuctory injunction.

    The motion ex-parte, filed on March 10, was moved by Osinbajo’s counsel Mr Femi Falana (SAN).

    The judge ordered: “That an order of interim injunction shall be considered with notice to the respondents. Generally, however, the status quo as at today shall be maintained pending hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”

    Justice Tsoho also granted the applicant leave to serve the Originating Summons and other accompanying court processes on the respondents in Abuja, which is outside the court’s jurisdiction.

    Osinbajo had prayed for “an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, privies, representatives and other media entities under the control of the third respondent (NBC) from any interference with or violation of the applicant’s right to dignity of human person, right to privacy and right to life and/or livelihood whether by means of publication or dissemination of any video documentary or by any means whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.

    Justice Tsoho adjourned till tomorrow for hearing of the motion on notice.

    Osinbajo alleged that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had been sponsoring defamatory documentaries against him.

    AIT and NTA had, for weeks, been broadcasting a documentary detailing the “atrocious” past of the APC  presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd.).

    The station also aired a similar documentary on APC national leader, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, chronicling his series of alleged financial misconduct.

    Osinbajo maintained that the documentaries, which allegedly contained untrue information and injurious falsehood, constitute a personal attack on his person.

    He argued that the videos were being aired in violation of his fundamental human right to dignity of human person, right to privacy and family virtue and right to life and/or livelihood as protected by Sections 33, 34 and 37 of the 1999 Constitution.

    ”Unless the respondents are restrained in the manner requested in this application, damages will be grossly inadequate to compensate or redress the unquantifiable, unwarranted and malicious damage to the applicant’s right to dignity of human person, right to livelihood and privacy guaranteed and protected under Sections 33, 34 and 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    After listening to Falana’s submission, Justice Tsoho ordered that NTA and AIT  and any other broadcast station should forthwith stop the broadcast of the damaging documentary which the applicant complained of until the determination of the substantive suit.