By dissolving the Advertising Standard Panel (ASP) over the controversial “All Eyes on the Judiciary” outdoor advertisement, the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) made a good attempt, albeit belatedly, to stem the grave concern about the continuous desecration of the temple of justice by a section of the public.

The ASP which is the statutory panel tasked with ensuring that proposed advertisements comply with the laws of the Federation and Code of Advertising Ethics negligently approved billboard advertisements seemingly aimed at lowering the reputation of the third arm of government. The billboards had the p

icture of the head of an eagle and measuring scales with the bold words: “All eyes on the election tribunal judges.” The billboards were on display in many parts of the country for weeks before the clampdown by ARCON.

In a swift reaction, the Director-General of ARCON, Dr. Olalekan Fadolapo, while directing that the advertisements be pulled down and the violators sanctioned, stated that “concepts exposed were not approved by the ASP.”  He nonetheless acknowledged that the ASP erroneously approved one of the concepts being a matter that is jus pendis and awaiting judicial pronouncement. Consequently, he dissolved the Panel and suspended its Director and Deputy Director in charge of regulations. Some pundits have contended that the DG himself, as the overall head of the organisation, should not have escaped sanction.

Expectedly, the issue has generated mixed reactions from members of the public. Some argue that the controversial caption is an innocuous innuendo charging the Election Tribunal Judges to do the right thing without more, while others believe it is an aphorism that depicts fear by some Nigerians over the present state of the Nigerian judiciary. However, a different sect submits that the slogan is repugnant, vexatious, and constitutes a subtle threat specifically directed at the justices of the Presidential Election Petition Court (PEPC). The advertisers (Diaspora’s For Good Governance) are believed to be a group of persons who are aggrieved with the outcome of the presidential election and have resorted to all manner of antics to swing the pendulum of justice in their direction.

While the term may arguably be subject to different interpretations, however, a dispassionate analysis of the events following the presidential election leads to a singular conclusion that it is intended to intimidate and blackmail PEPC. The advert is devoid of any nationalist or fair consideration as the entrenched interest of advertisers is for the matter to go their way and nothing else. Undoubtedly, the advert in its entirety is distasteful, offensive, and contemptuous of the PEPC; hence the violators should be held liable.

The prompt disciplinary measure taken by ARCON is appropriate and commendable. The members of ASP are the gatekeepers of ARCON who should alert any prospective advertiser on compliance. The subject advert not only falls short of the basic advertisement standards, it is also contemptuous. This leaves the impression that the vetting process of the Panel is significantly flawed as it appears more economic-oriented than professional.

At issue herein is not only the indictment of the Nigerian judiciary but also that the subject advertorials portray the country in a bad light before the entire world. It is not in the place of the populace to direct the panel of PEPC where to tilt the balance of convenience as they are senior judicial officers who are mindful of the oaths of their office and need no coaching on how to conduct their business. The various election petitions are expected to be strictly determined on the quality of evidence presented by parties and not on public opinions; and there is no need, particularly in the absence of any suspicious undertaking by the tribunal, to put undue pressure on their Lordships. Therefore, Nigerians should allow the adjudicatory process to run its due course, and not undermine, merely because they have a preferred candidate, the integrity of the process.

Admittedly, the right to freedom of expression is fundamental; however, it is subject to legal and moral circumscriptions. For instance, it is forbidden for any person to publicly discuss, debate, or advertise the substance of a matter that is pending in any court of law in Nigeria. Sadly, it is observed that since the inauguration of the 2023 PEPC, many Nigerians have taken to making, mostly unguarded, preemptory commentaries on the real issues forming the ballast of the petitions, particularly on the interpretation of Section 134 (2) of the 1999 Constitution (now known as the 25 per cent FCT conundrum). Ironically, lawyers, including those representing parties in the suit, have also been caught in this contemptuous web.

Indeed, the avalanche of fake news trailing the aftermath of the presidential election is quite worrisome. Sometime in March, it was alleged that the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Olukayode Ariwoola, JSC, had a secret meeting with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (then president-elect) in London over the outcome of the presidential election. In April, a PEPC panelist, Justice Boloukuoromo Moses Ugo, was rumoured to have resigned from the Bench due to pressure from the executive arm of government. Shortly after the president’s swearing-in, the social media was awash with fake news that President Tinubu held a telephone conversation with the CJN, purportedly to persuade the jurist to ensure that the court delivers judgment in favour of one of the parties.

Similarly, the immediate past Minister of Works and Housing, Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, was accused of drafting the judgment that PEPC will eventually deliver. More recently, it was alleged that the PEPC has fixed its judgment for September 16, 2023. These allegations have turned out to be untrue facts concocted by mischief makers clearly to impugn the integrity of PEPC or force it to adopt their desired position.

Although all the presidential elections under this democratic era have been subjects of keenly contested litigations, mischief makers, with probable backing of influential politicians, have been exploiting the controversy trailing the latest poll in an unprecedented and ruthless dimension capable of causing unrest and breach of peace. This is abnormal and cannot be justified even if some people are dissatisfied with the performance of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the elections. In any event, the performance of INEC is part of the issues awaiting the tribunal’s determination; and Nigerians ought to be patient for the verdict rather than spreading injurious speculations to ridicule the tribunal and judges.

Undoubtedly, Nigerians are emotionally invested in the proceedings at PEPC and anxiously waiting for its judgment. However, they should keep the faith in the justice administration system, and not be swayed by the false narratives, toxicity, and mudslinging circulating in the public domain. While the courts may have handed down some controversial judgments in the past, they are conscious of the heavy burden placed on them to dispense substantial justice in the pending electoral matters.

It is wrong-headed to discredit the entire Nigerian judiciary on the premise that a few judges had delivered judgments that appeared illogical to reason. In the history of the country’s judiciary, such controversial judgments are infinitesimal, in proportion to the many elucidating and landmark judgments of the courts. In the reassuring words of the Supreme Court Director of Press, Festus Akande: “The courts are statutorily established to serve the best interest of the masses, and we are ever poised to do that to the best of our ability.

The public should be assured that justice will be done to all matters pending in the various courts across the country, irrespective of who is involved. The rule of law and supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution will always be upheld and applied in every matter that comes before the courts.” Nigerians should embrace this assurance and allow the judiciary to discharge its work without fear or favour.