Media Rights Agenda (MRA) and the International Press Centre (IPC) have filed an appeal against the judgment of a Federal High Court in Abuja which dismissed their suit requesting it to compel the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to investigate their April 24, 2021, complaint against then Ebonyi State Governor David Umahi whom they alleged abused his office and breached his oath of office when he ordered the arrest of a journalist and banned two journalists for life from entering any government facility in the state.

In a Notice of Appeal filed on their behalf by Abuja-based lawyer, Mr. Noah Ajare, at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, they said they are dissatisfied with the judgment delivered by Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu in which he ruled that MRA and IPC failed to prove by credible evidence that their petition to the CCB was delivered to the Bureau and its Chairman, and expressed concern that the two organizations may be ?crying more than the bereaved? as the affected journalists whose rights they were defending had not made any complaint to the CCB.

Justice Egwuatu?s judgment arose from a suit filed by the organizations on November 10, 2021, against the CCB and its Chairman after they submitted a joint petition to the CCB on April 24, 2021, as well as a follow-up on October 21, 2021, and it failed to act on it. In the suit, MRA and IPC asked the court, among other things, to issue an order of mandamus compelling the CCB to carry out its duties as outlined in the Third Schedule to the Constitution, particularly Paragraph 3?, and investigate their complaint against Mr. Umahi.

In their four point Notice of Appeal, MRA and IPC are asking the Court of Appeal to uphold their appeal and set aside the entire decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, dismissing their suit as contained in the judgment delivered on November 29, 2024.

In their first ground of appeal, they contended that the Federal High Court erred in law by holding that they did not prove by credible evidence that their letters of complaint were served on the CCB and its Chairman as the court failed to properly consider the evidence presented by them, including the email sent to the CCB through its official email address and the courier evidence with waybill number 7186272155, which established service on October 21, 2021, adding that the court overlooked testimonies and documents that corroborated the claim of proper service.

In their second ground of appeal, MRA and IPC said the court misdirected itself in ruling that they did not have locus standi as NGOs to bring the action of behalf of the journalists as the court failed to recognize that as organizations dedicated to media rights and freedom of expression, they inherently possess the standing to advocate for the public interest.

Besides, they said the court did not adequately consider the implications of public interest and the role of NGOs in promoting accountability and transparency.

In their third ground of appeal, the organizations complained that the court erred in law in dismissing the case without properly considering the substantial public interest issues raised by them regarding the rights to freedom of expression, good governance and accountability.

According to them, the Court did not address the implications of the CCB?s alleged failure to act on the complaint, which relates to societal accountability and that the court?s dismissal of their suit on technical grounds undermined the merit of the substantive issues at hand, particularly those concerning the public well-being and governance.

In their fourth ground of appeal, MRA and IPC alleged that the court wrongfully dismissed their case without evaluating whether the CCB and its Chairman failed in their duty to investigate the allegations made by them.

They said the court erroneously concluded that the lack of proof of service negated the entire case, rather than considering the responsibility of the CCB and its Chairman to address complaints by the public.

Besides, the organizations argued that the court?s dismissal of their suit ignored established principles regarding the duty of public bodies to investigate legitimate public complaints.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

Update news