-->
  Overview of the Offence of Sedition

Overview of the Offence of Sedition



The offence of sedition attempts to  strike a  balance  between  Freedom of Expression as enshrined in section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the security of the state. But, in discussing or criticizing government, a person is allowed to keep his opinions within the limits of fair criticism. What is not permitted is to criticize the government in a malignant manner. For such attacks, by their nature tend to affect the public peace: DPP v. Obi. Therefore, what the offence of sedition seeks to achieve is the prevention of an unconstitutional overthrow of government or a breach of peace through virulent and malignant attacks on the government or a class. In DPP v. Chike Obi, the question raised was whether the offence of sedition in section 51 of the Criminal Code has not been invalidated by the provisions of the constitution in favour of freedom of expression. The court answered this question in the negative.

The Nigerian Law of sedition resembles the English law in certain respects; but, nowhere in the code is there anything to support the view that incitement to violence is a necessary ingredient of the crime. In Wallace Johnson v. R., it was contended that the intention of the code was to reproduce the English law of sedition. The court rejected this contention holding that it is the criminal code of the Gold Coast colony and not the English law that applied.

The foregoing apart, the offence of sedition is defined by section 51(1) of the Criminal Code, which provides that any person who:

(a)       does or attempts to do, makes preparation to do or conspires with many person to do, any act with a seditious intention;
(b)       utters any seditious words;
(c)       prints,  publishes,  sells,  offers  for  sale,  distributes  or  reproduces  any  seditious publication;
(d)       Imports any seditious publication;

unless he has no reason to believe that it is seditious; shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction for a first offence to imprisonment for two years or to a fine of N200.00 or to both imprisonment and fine and for the subsequent offence to imprisonment for three years and any seditious publication shall be forfeited by the state.

By section 52(1) of the Criminal Code, no prosecution for an offence under section 51 shall be begun except within six months after the offence was committed. Subsection (2) states that a person shall not be prosecuted for an offence under section 51 without the written consent of Attorney General of the Federation or of the state concerned. Subsection (3) says that no person shall be convicted of an offence under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 51 on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.

By section 50(2) of the Criminal Code, a seditious intention is an intention;

(a)          to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of the President, or of the governor of a state or the government of the federation or administration of justice;
(b)         to excite the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure the alteration otherwise than by lawful means of any matter in Nigeria as by law established; or
(c)          to  raise  dis-contempt  or  disaffection  amongst  the  citizens  or  other  inhabitants  of Nigeria;
(d)         to  promote  feelings  of  ill-will  and  hostility  between  the  different  classes  of  the population of Nigeria.

However, an act, speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends;

i.              to show that the president or the governor of a state has been misled or mistaken in any measure in the federation or a state as the case may be; or
ii.           to point out errors of defects in the government or constitution of Nigeria, or of any state thereof, as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to remedying such defects or errors; or
iii.           to persuade the citizens or other inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Nigeria as by law established; or
iv.           to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters which is producing or has a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between the different classes of the population of Nigeria.

Subsection (3) of section 50 states that in determining whether the intention with which any acts was done, any words spoken, any documents were published was or was not seditious, every person shall be deemed to intend the consequences of which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so conducted himself. Therefore, in determining seditious intention, regard must be paid to;

a.            the actual words used the accused;
b.            the time, place and manner of his conduct: The Service Press Ltd. v. The AG.

Judicial recognition of the offence of sedition can be found in the following cases. In African Press Ltd. v. The Queen, an article describing administrative officers as “disguised enemies of the struggle of freedom, mostly incompetent detractors working against nationalist”, was held to be seditious, thus making the accused person liable. Similarly, in James Ogidi v. Commissioner of Police, the fact that the accused sent telegraphs to the Ministry of Justice and also  published  the  said  telegraph alleging  that  the customary courts  in  Warri division were instruments of oppression of the people who were politically opposed to the part y in power in the state was held to be seditious. By the same token, it is a seditious offence to attack the members of the police force or of the legal department and to impute motives that they are doing their work with partiality and are aiding and abetting lawlessness: The Queen v. African Press Ltd. & Jakande.

It is instructive and illuminating to observe that in R v. Osita Agwuna & Ors, it was held that where the accused pleads that the words used by him are not capable of seditious intent and that therefore he is innocent, the prosecution can lead evidence of previous seditious words uttered or published by the accused to destroy this defence of innocence. This is an exception to the general rule is that seditious intent shall be gathered from the words used and the surrounding circumstances and not by any extrinsic evidence.

Furthermore, by section 51 of the Criminal Code, the actus reus of sedition consists of:

a.            the attempt, the preparation or conspiracy to do anything with seditious intent;
b.            uttering seditious words;
c.            printing,  publishing,  selling,  offering  for  sale,  reproducing,  distributing  or  importing seditious publication.

By section 50(1) thereof, seditious words means words having seditious intention; and seditious publication means publication having seditious intention. Further, by that section, „to publish‟ is to communicate or make known to another and every time this is done a separate offence is committed. In other words, each time a publication is made, there is a distinct offence which should be prosecuted separately: Ogbuagu v. Police. By section 380(2) of the Code, criminal responsibility of the proprietor, publisher or editor may be rebuked by proof that such publication took place without his knowledge and negligence on his part. 

Also, by section 381 thereof, knowledge that the book or periodical contains a defamatory matter is essential in the determination of criminal responsibility of a seller.

Additionally, where a person is charged with being in possession of a seditious publication, the burden is on him to prove lawful excuse: IGP v. Anozie. Proceeding relating to sedition must be with the consent of the relevant Attorney General. Proceedings begun without the consent of the Attorney General is a nullity: R v. Aiyeola. The consent of the Attorney General may be formally made known or in an informal manner as by his signing the information or charge sheet: R v. Zik Press Ltd. & Ors. The Attorney General may delegate his power to initiate criminal proceedings to the Director of Public Prosecutions and in such circumstances the signing of the information or charge sheet by the Director of Public Prosecutions will be deemed good as a sufficient consent by the Attorney General: AG Western State v. The African Press Ltd & Ayo.

In concluding this short essay, attempt will be made to give a highlight of the defences to a charge of sedition. A person charged with sedition may plead lawful excuse or that the consent of the appropriate Attorney General was not obtained or that the prosecution did not commence within six months as mandated by law. In Attorney General v. Service Press, it was held that the fact that the facts alleged by the accused are true is no defence once seditious intention is clear and established. However, in certain circumstances, it may be a relevant consideration for the purpose of ascertaining or to show the real intention of the person charged by considering the exception in section 50(i) – (iii): per Ademola CJN in DPP v. Chike Obi.


Finally, a newspaper proprietor whose paper contains a seditious word may show by way of events that the publication was made in spite of his express orders to the contrary: Ogbuagu v. Police. Importers of seditious publication and sellers or vendors may show by way of defence that they did not know of the seditious nature of the material. The defence available to a person found in possession of seditious material is lawful excuse.


Our website contains a wealth of free, reliable legal information. Here, you'll find information about starting and legally maintaining a company, partnership, or sole proprietorship, as well as information about franchises, general business law and taxation. To learn more about the legal issues surrounding businesses in Nigeria and to find answers to all of your business law questions, refer to the articles, answers and other resources on http://www.legalemperors.com.
For more on business, corporate & property law, see the useful links/labels on http://www.legalemperors.com.






© Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com, 2016 (All Rights Reserved). Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excepts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Onyekachi Duru Esq and www.legalemperors.com with appropriate and specific directions to the original content.
The post you have just read and indeed all other posts emanating from http://www.legalemperors.com contains general legal information and does not contain legal advice. http://www.legalemperors.com is not a law firm or a substitute for a lawyer or law firm. The law is complex and changes often. 
For Legal Advice, please ask a Lawyer



05:40:00  criminal, Criminal Law, DPP, Law Lecture Series, lectures, section 51 of the Criminal Code, Sedition, Wallace Johnson v. R.

Share this:

Previous Next