News
ECOWAS Court Gives Judgment on Press Council Inconsistency with Human Rights Law
ECOWAS Court Gives Judgment on Press Council Inconsistency with Human Rights Law
By: Michael Mike
The ECOWAS Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in a case brought by two Nigerian journalists alleging the Nigerian Press Council Act of 1992 was discriminatory and violated their right to freedom of expression.
In its judgment delivered by Hon Justice Dupe Atoki, Judge Rapporteur, the Court declared that Sections 19 (1)(a), 27 and 37 of the Nigerian Press Council (NPC) Act failed to recognize public interest media including rights of online and citizen journalists thereby violating Article 9 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), and Article 8 (1) and 10 (2) of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa.
The Court therefore ordered the government of Nigeria to amend these contested Sections to align with international practices that promote free, pluralistic and professional journalism. It however dismissed other claims which were not substantiated.
The case with suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/31/21 was filed on 14 June 2021 by lawyers representing the Applicants – Mr Isaac Olamikan and Mrs Edoghogho Ugberease – online and citizen journalists who practise journalism for the promotion of freedom of expression, opinion, and access to information.
In the application, they claimed that Sections 19(1)a, 27 and 37 of the Nigeria Press Council Act of 1992 requiring journalists to be at least 18 years and accredited by the NPC, 25 years to be an editor with working experience in reputable media organization or news agency and registered with the Nigeria Union of Journalists, discriminated against them.
The Applicants’ lawyers led by Mr President Aigbokhan argued that these Sections failed to recognise public interest media such as the rights of online and citizen journalists and were therefore discriminatory and violated their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed under Articles 2 and 9(1) of the ACHPR, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR), Articles 2, 10 and 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 8 (1) and 10 (2) of the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa; and breached the State’s obligation under the ECOWAS Treaty among other cited texts.
“For example, Section 37 of the Press Council Act, puts the minimum age to practice journalism as 18 years of age, while to be qualified as an editor, requires a minimum of 25 years of age. Sections 19(a) and 27 of the Act imposes educational qualifications and compulsory courses of attendance and training before a person can be recognized and allowed to practice as a journalist,” the judgment stated.
They also submitted that they were arrested separately at different locations while investigating and gathering information for their work, and that their arrest and detention were unlawful and violated their rights.
The Applicants asked the Court to order the Respondent to amend the contested Sections of the NPC Act to align with international practice and pay 1,000,000 (one million) USD as damages.
On their part, the Respondent’s lawyers Mrs Maimuna Lami Shiru and Mrs B.J. Oladipo told the Court that ‘journalism is a sensitive profession requiring mastery as well as regulation to prevent negative effect, adding that rights to information and freedom of expression are not absolute.’
The Respondent denied arresting and detaining the Applicants unlawfully, stating that the first Applicant was arrested because his action had national security implications while the second Applicant operated illegally.
They added that, in the same way as other professional bodies, there were criteria for registration and membership as journalists, and urged the Court to dismiss the case describing it as frivolous, baseless and an abuse of court process.
In its analysis, the Court determined if the matter was within its mandate, if it was admissible and if the Sections of the NPC Act were discriminatory and violated the right to freedom of expression of the Applicants. Relying on its rules of procedure and jurisprudence, the Court held the matter was within its jurisdiction and the case was admissible.
On the alleged violation of Article 2 of ACHPR the Court noted that the Applicants did not substantiate on how they were treated differently in an identical or similar situation. Consequently, it held that their rights to freedom from discrimination under Article 2 of ACHPR has not been violated.
While on the alleged violation of Article 9 (freedom of expression), the Court noted that Section 19(1) and Section 27 of the Press Act imposing minimum educational requirement, age limit and registration, were restrictive and interfered with the right to freedom of expression, and therefore violated Article 9 (2).
In reaching its decision, the Court also noted the impact of technology in the evolving media space with the advent of citizen journalists, influencers and content creators who share news, commentary, and analysis on social issues. Though not qualified in traditional sense, they contributed to shaping public opinion.
It drew inspiration from young activists notably Malala Yousafzai and Greta Thunberg who in their teens integrated online media in their advocacy and have attained world recognition through a free and unrestricted opportunity to gather information and express opinion.
Regarding the Applicants’ claim of unlawful arrest and detention, the Court noted that the Applicants did not prove their arrest was unlawful. Consequently, the Court dismissed their claims of unlawful arrest and request for compensation.
Both parties were ordered to bear their costs of litigation.
Also on the bench were Hon Justices Edward Amoako Asante (presiding) and Sengu M. Koroma (Member).
ECOWAS Court Gives Judgment on Press Council Inconsistency with Human Rights Law
News
Senegal President sacks Prime Minister Sonko, dissolves government amid growing tensions
Senegal President sacks Prime Minister Sonko, dissolves government amid growing tensions
By: Zagazola Makama
Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye has dismissed Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko and dissolved the country’s government following months of growing political tensions between the two leaders.
The decision was announced late Friday through a presidential decree broadcast on state television.
According to the decree read by a presidential aide, President Faye “ended the duties of Ousmane Sonko and consequently those of the ministers and secretaries of state who are members of the government.”
No immediate replacement for Sonko was announced as of the time of filing this report.
The dismissal followed a parliamentary session earlier in the week during which Sonko openly criticised President Faye, further exposing divisions within the ruling political establishment.
Political observers said relations between the two leaders had deteriorated in recent months over issues relating to party leadership, governance direction and the management of state affairs.
Analysts noted that the development could introduce fresh political uncertainty in Senegal at a time the country is facing mounting economic pressures, including rising public debt and broader fiscal challenges.
The dissolution of the government is expected to trigger consultations within the ruling coalition ahead of the appointment of a new prime minister and cabinet.
Senegal has long been regarded as one of West Africa’s more stable democracies, but recent political tensions have continued to attract regional and international attention.
Senegal President sacks Prime Minister Sonko, dissolves government amid growing tensions
News
Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle
Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle
By: Zagazola Makama
The dismissal of Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko by President Bassirou Diomaye Faye marks the culmination of a political rupture that many observers had long considered unavoidable.
What once appeared to be one of the strongest political alliances in contemporary Senegalese politics gradually evolved into a tense rivalry shaped less by ideology than by competing ambitions, institutional contradictions and the struggle for control of executive authority.
For months, tensions within the ruling camp had become increasingly visible. Though both men emerged from the same political movement and jointly embodied the rise of the PASTEF coalition against former President Macky Sall, the coexistence between a highly charismatic political mentor and a constitutionally empowered head of state proved difficult to sustain.
The crisis is anchored in a fundamental institutional reality:Senegal’s constitutional system ultimately concentrates executive legitimacy in the presidency.
While the Prime Minister exercises substantial governmental authority, the President remains the central pillar of executive power, deriving legitimacy directly from universal suffrage and serving as the supreme authority of the state.
Sources say that the conflict emerged because Sonko increasingly projected himself not merely as head of government, but as an alternative center of political gravity within the state apparatus.
Public speeches, political positioning and repeated demonstrations of personal influence created the perception that two competing executives were operating simultaneously within the same administration.
In highly presidential systems, such arrangements rarely survive for long.
Political theorists have often observed that leaders who attain supreme office tend to resist the emergence of rival figures whose popularity, influence or visibility may overshadow their own authority. The situation in Senegal increasingly reflected that classic tension between institutional legitimacy and political charisma.
Sonko’s political trajectory has long been built around a populist and confrontational style that resonated strongly with segments of Senegalese youth and anti-establishment voters. His appeal stemmed from a mixture of direct rhetoric, anti-system positioning, nationalist discourse and his ability to embody political resistance during years of confrontation with the former administration.
However, the same qualities that fueled his rise may also have contributed to his political isolation. Sourcds note that charismatic populist figures often struggle to adapt from opposition politics to the discipline and compromise required in governance. A political strategy built around constant confrontation can become difficult to reconcile with the institutional restraints of executive power-sharing.
Over time, Sonko appeared increasingly convinced that he remained the true engine behind the ruling coalition’s legitimacy and electoral success. That perception may have encouraged attempts to expand his political influence beyond the traditional boundaries of the prime ministerial office.
For President Diomaye Faye, allowing such an imbalance to persist carried political risks.
The removal of Sonko ultimately reaffirmed a basic constitutional principle, regardless of personal popularity, a Prime Minister remains subordinate to presidential authority in Senegal’s current institutional framework.
By dismissing his Prime Minister, Diomaye signaled that he intended to fully exercise the powers attached to the presidency rather than govern under the shadow of a more dominant political personality.
The decision may also represent an attempt to consolidate state authority, reassure institutional actors and prevent the emergence of dual centers of power capable of paralysing governance. Yet the move is not without danger.
Sonko still commands significant grassroots support and retains strong influence within sections of PASTEF and among politically mobilized youth constituencies. His removal could deepen divisions inside the ruling coalition and potentially reshape Senegal’s political landscape ahead of future elections.
One of the major questions now facing Senegalese politics is whether PASTEF can survive the split without suffering a major internal fracture. Political history across Africa shows that when alliances forged in opposition reach power, tensions often emerge over authority, succession and control of state institutions.
Some party officials and elected representatives may rally behind the President, who controls the state apparatus and constitutional legitimacy. Others may remain loyal to Sonko due to his personal popularity and historical role in the movement’s rise.
The outcome of that struggle could determine whether Senegal experiences a relatively stable political recomposition or enters a prolonged period of institutional tension.
Another key factor will be public sentiment. During years of opposition politics, confrontation and political mobilisation energized large sections of the electorate. However, governing presents different expectations. Many Senegalese citizens now appear increasingly concerned with economic management, institutional stability, governance reforms and social calm rather than perpetual political conflict.
That shift may strengthen Diomaye’s position if he succeeds in presenting himself as a stabilizing statesman capable of governing above partisan rivalries. At the same time, any perception that Sonko has been politically sidelined or unfairly neutralized could trigger renewed political mobilisation among his supporters.
The crisis illustrates a recurring lesson in political systems across the world. Conquering power together is often easier than sharing it afterward. The Diomaye–Sonko alliance was extraordinarily effective as an opposition force united against a common adversary. But once in office, the unresolved question of who truly embodied executive authority became increasingly difficult to avoid.
What began as political complementarity gradually transformed into institutional competition.
The final outcome remains uncertain. Diomaye may emerge stronger by consolidating presidential authority, or Sonko could retain enough political capital to remain a major force capable of reshaping Senegal’s future political balance.
Either way, the rupture marks a turning point in Senegalese politics and may redefine the future trajectory of one of West Africa’s most closely watched democracies.
Why the Diomaye–Sonko Split Became Almost Inevitable Amid Senegal’s Power Struggle
News
Beyond the Frontline: Ashlee Momoh Foundation Restores Hope to Widows of Fallen Heroes
Beyond the Frontline: Ashlee Momoh Foundation Restores Hope to Widows of Fallen Heroes
By Comrade Philip Ikodor
KADUNA – When a soldier falls in the line of duty, the echoes of the final salute eventually fade, but for the families left behind, a silent and grueling battle begins. While these brave men defended the nation’s sovereignty with courage, their widows are often left to navigate a minefield of poverty, trauma, and social isolation.
In a decisive move to address these challenges, the Ashlee Momoh Foundation (AMF) held a special outreach event at the Golden Orange Gate Hotel in Kaduna State on Thursday, May 21, 2026. The initiative sought to provide a lifeline to the families of departed heroes, framed not as charity, but as a profound national debt of gratitude.

The Chairperson and CEO of the Foundation, Princess Ashlee Momoh, emphasized that the AMF remains committed to ensuring no widow walks alone. She noted that the sacrifice of a soldier continues in the quiet hallways of homes where wives suddenly become sole providers.
“Many military widows face a daunting reality: sudden loss of income, housing insecurity, and a lack of access to specialized mental health support,” Princess Momoh stated. “Unless intentional interventions are made, these families remain trapped in a cycle of hardship that dishonors the legacy of the departed. Your story does not end in sorrow; it continues in purpose.”

Princess Momoh outlined the Foundation’s three strategic pillars designed to bridge the gap between loss and self-sufficiency:
Economic Independence: Providing small business grants, financial literacy, and vocational skills to restore dignity and autonomy.
Securing the Future: Offering scholarships and tuition assistance so that children do not pay for their fathers’ patriotism with their education. Emotional Fortitude: Establishing counseling and wellness groups to ensure widows are seen, heard, and sustained.

The Chairperson called for a “whole-of-society” approach, urging the government, private sector, and philanthropic organizations to join in collective action. While government intervention is pivotal, she noted that partnerships are essential to scaling the impact of these programs.
The event featured the distribution of empowerment gift items and the announcement of new scholarship awards. Prominent guests, partners and volunteers in attendance included Special Guests of Honor, Air Commodore Chris Dola (Rtd), PhD, and General Brown Yakubu (Rtd), CEO of Golden Orange Gate Hotel, both of whom delivered goodwill messages and also contributed immensely in support of the Foundation’s mission.
Beyond the Frontline: Ashlee Momoh Foundation Restores Hope to Widows of Fallen Heroes
-
News2 years agoRoger Federer’s Shock as DNA Results Reveal Myla and Charlene Are Not His Biological Children
-
Opinions4 years agoTHE PLIGHT OF FARIDA
-
News1 year agoFAILED COUP IN BURKINA FASO: HOW TRAORÉ NARROWLY ESCAPED ASSASSINATION PLOT AMID FOREIGN INTERFERENCE CLAIMS
-
News2 years agoEYN: Rev. Billi, Distortion of History, and The Living Tamarind Tree
-
Opinions4 years agoPOLICE CHARGE ROOMS, A MINTING PRESS
-
ACADEMICS2 years agoA History of Biu” (2015) and The Lingering Bura-Pabir Question (1)
-
Columns2 years agoArmy University Biu: There is certain interest, but certainly not from Borno.
-
Politics12 months ago2027: Why Hon. Midala Balami Must Go, as Youths in Hawul and Asikira/Uba Federal Constituency Reject ₦500,000 as Sallah Gift
