–
THE SERVICE PRESS LIMITED
V.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL, HOLDEN AT LAGOS, NIGERIA
2ND DAY AT OCTOBER, 1952
W.A.C.A. NO. 3854
2PLR/1952/91 (WACA)
OTHER CITATION(S)
2PLR/1952/91 (WACA)
(1952) XIV WACA PP. 176 – 177
LEX (1952) – XIV WACA 176 – 177
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
VERITY, C.J., NIGERIA
COUSSEY, J.A.
–
BETWEEN:
THE SERVICE PRESS LIMITED – Appellant
AND
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF HER MAJESTY – Respondent
–
ORIGINATING COURT(S)
Appeal by the defendants in a criminal case against the decision of the Supreme Court (Johnston, J., Presiding)
–
REPRESENTATION
F. R. A. Williams — for the Appellants
Adams, Crown Counsel — for the Attorney-General
–
ISSUE(S) FROM THE CAUSE(S) OF ACTION
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — SEDITION:- Criminal Code, section 50(2) — Seditious publication — Defence of truth — Evidence of truth of publication — Whether relevant and admissible — Legal effect
–
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)
EVIDENCE:- Charge of seditious publication — Admissibility and relevance of evidence
–
CASE SUMMARY
Section 50(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:-
“50(2) A “seditious intention” is an intention-
“(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, Her heirs or successors, or the person of the Governor, or the Government or constitution of the United Kingdom, or of Nigeria, as by law established or against the administration of justice in Nigeria; or
“(b) to excite Her Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of Nigeria to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Nigeria as by law established; or
“(c) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty’s subjects or inhabitants of Nigeria; or
“(d) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Nigeria.
“But an act, speech or publication is not seditious by reason only that it intends:-
“(i) to show that Her Majesty has been misled or mistaken in any of her measures; or
“(ii) to point out errors or defects in the Government or constitution of Nigeria as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; or
“(iii) to persuade Her Majesty’s subjects or 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 are producing or have a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Nigeria.”
The appellants were charged with publishing a seditious publication, and at the trial they sought to lead evidence that the allegations made were true but were overruled by the Judge; after conviction they appealed arguing that they could not establish a defence of bona fides under section 50(2)(i) to (iv) without proving the truth of the allegations in the publication complained of.
–
DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
Held (dismissing the Appeal) that:
(1) The gist of the offence lies in the seditious intention as defined, which intention is to be gathered from the contents of the publication;
(2) the truth of the matter published has no bearing on the character of the publication; therefore the evidence was rightly excluded.
Case cited:-
(1) Rex v. Wallace-Johnson, 5 W.A.C.A. 56, P.C.
–
–
MAIN JUDGMENT
The following Judgment was delivered:
FOSTER-SUTTON, P.
The appellants were charged with, and convicted of, publishing a seditious publication in a newspaper called The Daily Service, contrary to section 51(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
At the trial before Johnston, J., the appellants attempted to lead evidence in an endeavour to show that the allegations contained in the publication complained of were true.
The learned trial Judge held that if every allegation contained in the publication were proved by the defence to be true, such proof would not entitle the defendants to an acquittal, and he ruled the evidence inadmissible.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that before an accused person can avail himself of the protection afforded by paragraphs (i) to (iv) of section 50(2) of the Ordinance he must prove the truth of the allegations contained in a publication complained of otherwise he cannot establish the bona fides of his intention.
Section 50(1) of the Ordinance defines a “seditious publication” as meaning a publication having a seditious intention and a “seditious intention” is defined in paragraphs (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of the section.
There can, in our view, be no doubt as to the correctness of the ruling made by the learned trial Judge.
The gist of the offence is in the intent to do one or more of the matters stated in the definition of seditious intention, independently of the truth or otherwise of the matters alleged in the publication complained of, and in our opinion the intention is to be ascertained by reference to the contents of the publication. Sub-section (3) of section 50 of the Ordinance expressly provides that in determining whether the intention with which any document was published was or was not seditious, “every person shall be deemed to intend the consequences which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so conducted himself “. In this case the appellants’ conduct in publishing the article and cartoon referred to in the complaint.
As was pointed out by Viscount Caldecote, L.C., in Rex v. Wallace-Johnson (1), fine distinctions may sometimes have to be drawn between facts which justify the conclusion that the intention of the person charged was seditious and facts which are consistent only with the view that the intention was no more than one of those enumerated in paragraphs (i) to (iv) of sub-section (2) of section 50, but this is not one of those cases.
If the publication is seditious by reason of its expression of a seditious intention as defined in section 50 of the Ordinance, as was clearly the case here, then the offence has been committed and no extrinsic evidence is relevant to prove intention.
For these reasons we dismissed this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
–