THE Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) on Friday prayed a Federal High Court, Lagos, to uphold the competence of its suit challenging APCON's action, insisting the advertising body has no powers to regulate the activities of NPAN members.
APCON raised a preliminary objection against the suit. Counsel to NPAN, Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, urged the court to dismiss the objection.
Oyetibo prayed the trial judge, Musa Kurya, to assume jurisdiction over the suit by holding that it is competent on the basis that NPAN has "sufficient interest" to institute the suit on behalf of its members who are affected by APCON's action.
According to him, NPAN has a singular mandate of protecting the interests of its members, who are owners of media houses whose interests are being "adversely affected" by APCON's "unconstitutional regulations".
He said contrary to APCON's argument, the suit is not to fight for the employees of media houses being allegedly harassed by APCON and the Police, but that it was instituted to challenge the power of APCON to "control newspapers".
APCON's counsel, Chief Anthony Idigbe, in replying on point of law, asked the court to grant his application and dismiss the suit on the ground that NPAN lacks "legal competence" to institute the suit.
Idigbe argued that NPAN lacks locus standi to institute the suit because the code being challenged was enacted to regulate the activities of advertising practitioners who are employees of the media houses.
According to him, the relationship between APCON and advertising practitioners is like one, which exists between the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria and bankers.
He said advertising practitioners are only using the media houses as platform for their work just like bankers, who are being regulated by CIBN, use various banks, which employed them, as platform.
The court held that the Inspector General of Police, Mohammed Abubakar, who is the second defendant in the suit, has lost the opportunity to defend the case, having failed to enter any legal appearance within 30 days of being served papers of the suit.
The matter was adjourned till December 13 for ruling.
