Why “APCON” Lacks Powers To Regulate Advertisement In Nigeria

Daily Law Tips (Tip 419) by Onyekachi Umah, Esq., LLM.
ACIArb(UK)

WHY “APCON” LACKS POWERS TO REGULATE ADVERTISEMENT IN
NIGERIA.

First of all, a “LAW” no matter how bad, wicked, offensive,
ineffective or empty it is, will remain in operation until it is
amended or repealed (abolished). And the only organ that can change
law is the legislature. In interpreting a law, one cannot add or
remove anything, originally not added or removed by the law makers.
By the way, interpretation of law can only be done by a Court and
not any agency or establishment of government.

The Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) was
established by an Act of parliament, known as the Advertising
Practitioners (Registration etc) Act of 1988. According to the law,
APCON was set up to regulate and control the practise of
advertisement by Advertising Practitioners. The long title and
short title of the Act are clear on this as well as its section 1.
Also, even in regulating and controlling of advertisement
practitioners by APCON, APCON by law must seek approval from
Minister for Health where advertisement relates to matters of food,
cosmetics, beverages and drugs.

To avoid abuse and intimidation of public by APCON, the Courts
have had to interpret the Advertising Practitioners (Registration
etc) Act of 1988, being the main law relied on by APCON and the
subsidiary legislations of APCON (like, Nigerian Code of
Advertising Practice and Sales Promotion and other
Rights/Restrictions on Practice (5th Edition)

In a recent case of MIC Royal Limited v. APCON (Judgment was
delivered on July 5, 2018), the Court of Appeal held that APCORN
has no powers over ordinary persons, companies, institutions,
businesses, or groups advertising anything in so far as such
persons or groups are not into the business of advertisement
practise. It stated that APCON has powers ONLY over persons
(advertisement practitioners) doing business of advertisement
practise. The court further, reiterated its earlier warning to
APCON in a similar case (APCON v. The Registered Trustees of
International Covenant Ministerial Council & Ors.) , to stop
harassing and forcing Non-APCON members (Non Advertising
Practitioners or general public) to be under APCON, submit their
adverts for vetting or pay violation fines. The clear words of the
Court of Appeal to APCORN, are below;

“…what the Appellant (APCON) seem to be after is to force into
membership of the advertising practitioners, persons or bodies or
establishments who have neither the inclination nor the interest to
become same… The sum total of what the Appellant is pushing forward
is to forcibly make members, those who cannot be and who are
completely outside the purview of the Act. The Council (APCON) is
better advised to keep its tentacles within its authorized
membership and leave well alone person not within their scope or
profession…”

In summary, the law establishing APCON does not give APCON
powers to control and regulate “Advertisement” generally in Nigeria
rather it gives APCON powers to control and regulate persons
(advertisement practitioners) into the business of practise of
advertisement (advertisement business). Unlike the Legal profession
and even Medical profession, where the Legal Practitioners Act and
the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, expressly reserved such
professions and prohibits or limits unlicensed persons from
practising such professions, the APCON Act is silent or at best
self limiting. However, I doubt if advertisement can ever be
exclusively reserved for advertisement practitioners. It is so
because, just like law practise and legal services, ordinary
persons must be allowed to advertise for themselves and not in
return for a fee as is the case in law practise, where non-lawyers
are permitted to conduct their cases themselves, personally.

My authorities are;

Sections 1, 20 and 30 of the Advertising Practitioners
(Registration etc) Act of 1988
Sections 1 and 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1975.
Sections 8 and 17 Medical and Dental Practitioners Act of 1988.
MIC Royal Limited v. APCON (Suit No. CA/L/1140/2016 – Judgment
delivered on July 5, 2018) CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45314(CA),
APCON v. The Registered Trustees of International Covenant
Ministerial Council & Ors. (2010) LPELR (CA) 3630)
BELLO & ORS vs. AG. OYO STATE (1986) LPELR -764 (SC).
IBRAHIM Vs. JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KADUNA STATE (1997) LPELR –
1408 (SC)

#DailyLawTips
#SabiLaw
#LearnNigerianLaws

Feel free to reach the author, ask questions or make inquiries
on this topic or any other via [email protected]^[1]
or [email protected]^[2]
or +2348037665878.

NOTE: Sharing or modifying or publishing this publication
without giving credit to Onyekachi Umah, Esq. and
“LearnNigerianLaws.com” is a criminal breach of copyright and will
be prosecuted. Please share this publication till it gets to those
that need it most. Save a Nigerian today!

To receive our Daily Law Tips for free follow our Facebook page,
Twitter, Instagram and YouTube via “@LearnNigerianLaws”.
This publication is the writer’s view not a legal advice and does
not create any form of relationship. You may reach the writer for
more information.

Powered by www.LearnNigerianLaws.com

Subscribe ToNairalaw News!