LAW OF SEDITION

“Where Freedom of expression ends. Law of

sedition begins.”
GROUP 5 MEMBERS
ADESOPE TAIWO • 17BE0220
ADEYEMI ANJOLA • 17BE022049
AKINDELE OLAMIDE • 17BE0220
AHAMS PRECIOUS • 17BE0220
EGBE EMMANUELLA • 17BE022067
UMAR ADAMS
Outline
• Introduction
• Definition
• Historical Overview
• Statutory Provisions of the law
• Proof of Sedition
• Case Studies
• Conflict between Freedom of Speech and the Constitution
• Punishment for Sedition
• Defences for Sedition
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important of all the fundamental
human rights is the “Freedom of expression”.
Every human has the need to express his or her
opinion without fear. However, what happens
when the freedom of expression becomes
unhinged, then several questions arises.
Is there a need for a law that curtails the freedom
of expression?
If yes, what then are the limits to the freedom of
expression? And where is the line drawn as to
what is regarded as freedom of expression?
 DEFINITION
• As a term, sedition is defined as the conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against
the authority of a state or monarch.

• It is an overt conduct, such as speech and organization that tends toward rebellion
against the established order.

• The Black law’s dictionary defined sedition as an insurrectionary movement tending

towards treason, but wanting an overt act; attempts made by meetings or speeches, or
by publications, to disturb the tranquility of the state.

• The Criminal Codes Act Cap. 42, section 50 (1), defines “Seditious Publications” to
mean publications that have seditious intentions; and “Seditious words” to mean words
with seditious intentions.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

SO WHERE DID IT ALL START?

 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
• At this point, it is important to examine the historical beginning of the law of
sedition in Nigeria.

• Historically, the law of sedition is a colonial enactment transplanted from Britain

and India to Nigeria despite the differences in political culture. It is to be noted
that the whole idea of the law of sedition is the protection of the person of the
Queen, Britain being a constitutional monarchy. The notion was that the King or
Queen during the regency does no wrong.

• Hence, his heirs and successors must be protected from acts of mischief or truth,
which would bring them to contempt, hatred or excite disaffection against them. It
was this British political tradition that regrettably guided court’s decisions on
sedition cases in Nigeria.

• So, many cases emerged during this period against journalist who published
articles or news that tends to challenge the epoch of the colonialist. This resulted to
trials for sedition, during Colonial Governors like Lord Luggard, the Seditious
Offences Ordinance of 1909 was introduced to check the excessive to this freedom.
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
• Section 6 of the Seditious Offenses 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 as
the period as the police, magistrate or district requires.

• Nigeria became independent on October 1, 1960, witnessed the height of nationalist

movements which gave birth to political independence for most countries. After
independence, the law of sedition became a post-colonial inheritance.

• One of the most important post-colonial statutes that is not only against the press but
more so against sedition, defamation and the right of the freedom of expression is the
Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984.

• The Public Officers (Protection Against False Accusation) Decree No. 4 of 1984 has been
described as the 'amalgam of all press laws enacted in post-independence Nigeri a'.
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
This law criminalized the publication of false reports or statements that exposed a
government official or the government itself to ridicule or contempt. Published in
September 1909 in the official Gazette and reprinted in an issue of the government
Gazette dated October 1, 1909, the Seditious Offenses Ordinance under Sections 3
and 5 provided that :

Whoever by words, either spoken or written .......brings or attempts to bring 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 or publishes or circulates any statement , rumor or report , with intent
to cause, or which is likely to cause any officer of the government of SouthernNigeria or
any person otherwise in the service or servant of His majesty ....... shall be punished
(Gazzette, 1909).
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
• The law was drafted on March 29, 1984, Decree No. 4 was the most dreaded, most repressive and the
last press law enacted in Nigeria.
• The law was drafted to punish authors of false statements and reports that exposed the Buhari
administration and or its officials to ridicule or contempt. Section 1, sub-sections (i), (ii) and (iii) of
the law - the most formidable section – provided that
Any person who publishes in any form, whether written or otherwise, any message, rumour, report or
statement, being a message, rumour, statement or report which is false in any material particular or which
brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Military Government or the Government of a state or public officer
to ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence under this Decree.
Any station for wireless telegraphy which conveys or transmits any sound or visual message, rumour, report or
statement, being a message, rumour, report or statement which is false in any material particular or which
brings or is calculated to bring the Federal Government or the Government of a state or a public officer to
ridicule or disrepute, shall be guilty of an offence under this Decree.
It shall be an offence under this Decree for a newspaper or wireless telegraphy station in Nigeria to publish or
transmit any message, rumour, report or statement which is false in any material particular stating that any
public officer has in any manner been engaged in corrupt practices or has in any manner competely enriched
himself or any other person {Gazette, 1984).
 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
Today, the law against seditious publications is still well
protected and reserved in the Penal code and Criminal law
code of the Country.
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE LAW
The penal code of Northern Nigeria provides:

416. Inciting disaffection to the Government

Whoever by words, either spoken or reproduced by mechanical means or intended to be read, or
by signs or by visible representation or otherwise excites or attempts to excite feelings of
disaffection against the person of the President or the Governor of a State, or against the
Government, or the Constitution, or any State thereof or against the administration of justice in
Nigeria or any State thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years or with fine or with both.

418.  Publication of false news with intent to cause offence against the public peace
Whoever circulates, publishes or reproduces any statement, rumour or report which he knows or
has reason to believe to be false with intent to cause or which is likely to cause fear or alarm to
the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the public peace,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE LAW

419. Possession of seditious articles
Whoever has in his possession without lawful excuse, the proof of which shall lie
on him, any book, pamphlet, paper, gramophone record, tape recording,
drawing, printing, photograph, cinema film or other visible or audible
representation or reproduction, the publication or exhibition of which would
constitute an offence under section 416, 417 or 418 of this Chapter, shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with
fine or with both.

• Seditious intention has been defined by the provision of S. 50 (2) of the Criminal Code. It
provides:
50 (2) A “seditious intention” is an intention-
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE LAW
But an act, speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends

(i) to show that the President or the Governor of a State has been misled or mistaken
in any measure in the Federation or a State, as the case may be; or
(ii) to point out errors or defects in the Government or constitution of Nigeria, or of
any State thereof, 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
(iii) to persuade the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure by
lawful means the alteration of any matter in Nigeria as by law established; or
(iv) To point out, with a view to their removal, any matters which are producing or
have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of
the population of Nigeria.
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE LAW
(a) To bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the person
of the President or of the Governor of a State or the Government of the
Federation; or

(b) to excite the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure

the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Nigeria
as by law established; or

(c) To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens or other inhabitants

of Nigeria; or

(d) To promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the
population of Nigeria.
PROOF OF SEDITION
 PROOF OF SEDITION
• Seditious intention on the part of the accused can be
inferred from either the manner of publication of the
alleged seditious words or the language used by the accused,
although such seditious words may produce different results
depending on the audience being addressed.

• For instance, if the audience is that of enlightened educated

people the use of a particular language may not incite to
violence than it would if the audience is that of uneducated
young people.

• The essential element that one must note here is that, the
words used must have the tendency to incite ordinary
people to violence.

• It is however not a defence that the people addressed were

unmoved by such words to violence. Therefore, the alleged
seditious words will be interpreted in the light of the
surrounding circumstances
 PROOF OF SEDITION
• According to section 50(3) of the Criminal Code, in determining whether the intention with
which any act was done, any words were spoken, or any document was published, was or
was not seditious, every person shall be deemed to intend the consequences which would
naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so
conducted himself.

• This means that, one must take care in ensuring that the act, words or publication is in fact
not seditious.

• It follows from the above provision that if you publish or utter words that are seditious but
for which you have no seditious intention, you will nevertheless be liable for the offence, if
from your words or publication, such intention can be inferred.

• The provision of section 50(3) is essential in inferring seditious intention from the natural
consequences of the publication or words used.

• Thus, it places responsibility on the part of anyone publishing or uttering words on public
issues to ensure that they are not seditious.
(a) In D.P.P. V Chike Obi (1961), the words published were “Down
with the enemies of the people, the exploiters of the weak and
oppressors of the poor” etc. which were directed at the Federal
Government of Nigeria.

(b) In James Ogidi V Commissioner of Police (1960) a telegram sent

to the Regional Minister of Justice and published in newspapers and a
broadcasting corporation accused the customary courts of a Division of
being used to oppress the supporters of an opposition political party.

(c) In African Press Ltd V R. (1952), an article was carried warning

the public to beware of administrative officers and alleging that they
were clearly disguised enemies of the struggle for freedom, mostly
incompetent dictators working against nationalists.

(d) In African Press Ltd V Attorney-General of Western Nigeria

(1965) a newspaper article accusing a regional government of reckless
squandamania, abuse of office, misuse of money held in trust for the
people, fraudulent diversion of public money for private purpose, and
inciting one ethnic group against another
CONFLICT BETWEEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
CONSTITUTION
ARTHUR NWANKWO
• In the classic v Nwankwo
case of Chief Arthur THE STATE
v the state, the appellant who was a gubernatorial
candidate in Anambra state, in 1982, was alleged to have attacked the governor, Nwobodo, via a book
he published entitled ‘HOW JIM NWOBODO RULES ANAMBRA STATE’.

• Upon being sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for the offences of ‘publishing seditious
publication’ and ‘distributing seditious publications,’ the appellant went on appeal.

• The appeal court discharged and acquitted him holding that although the book sharply criticises the
government, it was indeed healthy in a true democracy. Hence, in the view of the appeal court, if the
government officials felt personally attacked, they could take this up by launching a defamation suit.

• Furthermore, his Lordship, Justice Belgore held that the charge against the appellant / accused was
inconsistent with sections 36 and 41 of the then 1979 Constitution. In other words, the machinery of
government was not to be used as a tool to suppress freedom of expression.

• For a proper analysis of the law of sedition in contemporary Nigerian criminal law, there is need to
also appreciate the concepts of Freedom of Expression and Defamation.
 WHY HE WON
• In this case, we can see that Chief Arthur Nwankwo was discharged and acquitted as he did not actually
commit the act of sedition. The Appeal Court was able to establish that although there were critics in the
workings of the Governor, Nwobodo, it was done in true democracy and well within his rights of the
freedom of his expression, which are as stated:

As citizens of Nigeria, we have basic human rights that are to be upheld and protected by the law. Our Freedom
of Speech is one of those rights. According to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As
amended) provides:

• Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to
receive and impart ideas and information without interference.

• Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own,
establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions:

Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person or
body authorised by the President on the fulfilment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National
Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for, any purpose
whatsoever.
 
 WHY HE WON
• Moreover, there was no statement made to misrepresent the
Government as a whole and their operations, and no false,
misleading statements that would give rise to instability in the state
and within the people and the Government.
 
• If Chief Arthur Nwankwo had criticized the government as a whole
in his book, or he had made statements about the operations of the
government in a misleading light that would cause disaffection
among the people to the government of the state, he would have
been convicted for Sedition. The court was able to establish the line
between the concept of Freedom of Speech and Sedition, thereby
showing the link between the two concepts.
 WHY HE WON
• To the renowned Nigerian professor Chukkol, where the freedom of expression ends
and the crime of sedition begins is a very difficult point to clearly see. In stressing
such difficulty, Justice Ademola in D.P.P vs. Obi stated:

A person has a right to discuss any grievance or criticize, canvass or censure acts of
government and their public policy. He may even do this with a view to affecting a
change in the party in power…what is not permitted is to criticize the Government
in such a malignant manner for such attacks by their very nature tend to affect the
public peace.

• This could be summarized that the whole purpose of sedition is to limit excessiveness
of the use of one’s fundamental right to the freedom of expression.

• In essence, sedition does not infringe on our human rights, it simply controls it. For
where there is no control, chaos rules supreme.
PUNISHMENT FOR SEDITION
 PUNISHMENT FOR SEDITION
The law of sedition is contained in Section 51 (1) of the Criminal Code. Under this law the offence of
sedition is committed where:

a. any person does or attempts to do any preparation, or conspires with any persons to do, any act with
a seditious intention;

b. any person utters any seditious words;

c. any person prints, publishes, sells offers for a sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication;

d. any person imports any seditious publication, unless he has no reason to believe that it is seditious.

In any of the above cases, such a person shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction, for a
first offence to imprisonment for two years or to a fine of #200 or to both, and for a subsequent offence,
to imprisonment for three years; and any seditious publication shall be forfeited to the government. It
also an offence for any person without lawful excuse to have in his possession any seditious publication
(Section 51 (2) CC).
Sedition is provided in section 416 of the Penal Code with punishment up to seven years imprisonment
or with fine, or both.
 Defense of lawful excuse
Defense of lawful excuse is applicable when the accused can prove that what was
published or said falls online with section 50 (2) of the criminal code act which
states that:
But an act, speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends:

• To show that the President or the Governor of a State has been misled or
mistaken in any measure in the Federation or a State, as the case may be; or

• Point out errors or defects in the Government or constitution of Nigeria, or of

any State thereof, 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 the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure by

lawful means the alteration of any matter in Nigeria as by law established; or

• To point out, with a view to their removal, any maters which are producing or
have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different
classes of the population of Nigeria.
FOR SEDITION
 • Truth
Technically truth holds little water in the defense of sedition, this is because sedition is
concerned with the manner and intention behind the statement or publication. If the
publication or critic of the government has passed the confines of freedom of speech
and is seditious in nature beyond reasonable doubt, then whether the statement is true
or false does not manner. However, if the truth is spoken online with the section 50 (2)
of the criminal code act and can be proved to be void of seditious intent then it can
serve as a defense in this manner.

• Ignorance
This defense protects the distributors of the seditious publication. Distributors such as
the newspaper vendors, and owner of the newspaper, can plead ignorance if they had
no involvement in the creation of the article, but served as only a channel for
distribution. To prove the non-seditious character of a publication, an accused may rely
on some passages in the same publication as a defense. The court has held “he who
writes an article with a seditious intention cannot be including in the article critics
which are legitimate….be excused from writing a seditious article. Often enough a
seditious article does contain parts which can are not seditious”.
A newspaper proprietor whose paper contains seditious words may show that such
FOR SEDITION publication was made despite his express orders to the contrary.