High Court Invalidates Abuja’s Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law in New Decision

High Court Invalidates Abuja’s Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law in New Decision

Introduction

This article evaluates the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (“FCT High Court”) invalidating the Abuja Municipal Area Council’s (“AMAC”) Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law in the matter of Yaliam Press Limited v. Abuja Municipal Area Council with Suit No: CV/2811/2021 (the “Yalim Case”).

This article examines the legal issues surrounding the decision, the constitutional framework governing broadcasting regulation and taxation, and the broader implications of the judgment for businesses, media operators, and local government authorities across Nigeria.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose after AMAC served a demand notice on Yaliam Press Limited requiring it to pay radio and television licence fees pursuant to the AMAC’s Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law 2012 (the “Bye-Law”). Dissatisfied with the demand, the claimant commenced an action challenging both the validity of the demand notice and the constitutionality of the Bye-Law. The claimant contended that AMAC lacked the constitutional authority to enact legislation imposing radio and television licence fees and further maintained that it neither owned nor operated a radio or television station. It argued that the Bye-Law exceeded the powers conferred on Area Councils under the Constitution and was therefore invalid.

In response, AMAC relied on Section 7 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Paragraph 1(b) of the Fourth Schedule, which empowers local government councils to participate in the collection of rates,radio and television licences and other specified revenue sources. AMAC argued that these provisions vested it with the authority to enact the Bye-Law and collect the disputed licence fees.

The dispute therefore presented the Court with an opportunity to determine the scope of AMAC’s constitutional powers and whether the Bye-Law was a lawful exercise of those powers. On 13 March 2025, the FCT High Court delivered judgment in the Yalim Case, declaring the Bye-Law unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid.

Analysis of the Court’s findings

The principal issue before the Court was whether, by virtue of Section 7 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Paragraph 1(b) of the Fourth Schedule thereto, AMAC possessed the constitutional authority to enact the Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law 2012 and demand payment of licence fees from the Claimant.

In resolving the dispute, the Court undertook an examination of Section 7 of the Constitution and Paragraph 1(b) of the Fourth Schedule, which identifies the functions of local government councils, including participation in the collection of rates, radio and television licences and other specified revenue sources.

AMAC argued that these provisions empowered it to enact the Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law 2012 and to collect licence fees. The Court, however, adopted a restrictive interpretation of the constitutional provisions and emphasized that local government councils are creatures of the Constitution whose powers are limited to those expressly conferred upon them.

The Court held that the constitutional provision could not be interpreted as granting AMAC an unfettered legislative power to create a comprehensive radio and television licensing regime. Rather, any exercise of legislative authority by a local government must remain within the confines of the Constitution and cannot extend beyond the powers expressly granted.

This reasoning is consistent with the established principle that where the Constitution has clearly delineated the powers of governmental authorities, those powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with constitutional limits. The Court found that AMAC lacked the power to enact legislation creating radio and television licensing obligations in the manner contemplated by the Bye-Law.

Consequently, the Court declared the Radio and Television Licence Bye-Law 2012 unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid. The significance of this finding lies in the reaffirmation of the doctrine of ultra vires. Under Nigerian constitutional law, any legislation or administrative action undertaken outside the powers granted to a public authority is liable to be declared null and void. By invalidating the Bye-Law, the Court reinforced the principle that local government councils cannot rely on expansive interpretations of their constitutional functions to impose new obligations on citizens and businesses.

The Court also considered whether the demand notice issued to Yaliam Press Limited was valid. The Claimant maintained that it neither owned nor operated a radio or television station and that there was no basis for the imposition of the licence fee. Having reviewed the evidence before it, the Court concluded that the Defendant failed to establish any legal basis for the demand.

Since the validity of the demand notice was predicated upon the validity of the Bye-Law itself, the Court’s finding that the Bye-Law was unconstitutional necessarily rendered the demand notice unsustainable. The Court therefore set aside the demand and granted injunctive relief restraining AMAC from further enforcing the impugned levy against the Claimant.

Implications of the Judgement

The judgment has significant implications, first, it serves as a reminder that the desire to increase internally generated revenue cannot justify the imposition of taxes, fees, or levies that lack a clear constitutional or statutory foundation. Revenue-generating measures must derive their legitimacy from law and not merely from administrative convenience.

Secondly, the decision strengthens the ability of businesses to challenge unlawful levies imposed by governmental authorities. In recent years, businesses have frequently complained of multiple taxation and overlapping regulatory demands from different tiers of government. The judgment demonstrates the willingness of the courts to scrutinize such measures and invalidate those that exceed constitutional limits.

Thirdly, the decision reinforces the constitutional principle that local governments possess limited and delegated powers. Any attempt by a local government council to expand its authority through subsidiary legislation will be subject to judicial review and may be struck down where it exceeds constitutional boundaries.

Finally, the judgment contributes to the broader discourse on fiscal federalism and the allocation of taxing powers in Nigeria. It underscores the need for greater clarity regarding the scope of local government revenue powers and highlights the importance of ensuring that revenue collection mechanisms are aligned with constitutional requirements.

Conclusion

The decision of the Court represents an important reaffirmation of constitutional supremacy and the limits of local government legislative authority. For businesses and local government authorities alike, the decision provides valuable guidance on the scope of local government powers and the constitutional constraints that govern the exercise of those powers.

AUTHOR

Esosa Aibueku
Associate – Hamu Legal