Part II: Constitutional Issues Bedeviling the ARCON Act 2022

Building on my previous article, this sequel examines three additional constitutional conflicts within the ARCON Act, highlighting the extent of its legal overreach.

ARCON Act Vs Fourth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution

Part III of the ARCON Act starting from section 8 to section 9 empowers the council to regulate and control advertising, advertisements and marketing communications in all its aspects and ramifications directed at or exposed to the Nigerian market.[2]

However, it is a trite principle of Law that the federal government can only legislate on matters contained in the Exclusive and Concurrent lists only. In those two lists, nowhere was advertising ever mentioned, save in Item 1(K)(I) of the Fourth Schedule which delists the functions of the Local Government.

To understand what this entails, Niki Tobi JSC(as he then was) in the case of A.G Abia V AGF[3] stated that

“Residual matters (or matters in the residual list) are those that are neither in the

exclusive or concurrent legislative list; that is, what remains or is not covered by the

exclusive and concurrent legislative lists. Thus, by residual legislative power it is meant what is left after the matters in the exclusive and concurrent legislative lists and those matters which the Constitution expressly empowers the Federation and the States to

legislate upon have been subtracted from the totality of the inherent and unlimited powers of a sovereign state.”

In other words, any matter which is not contained in both lists is not within the legislative powers of the federal government. And in this case, advertising wasn’t mentioned in any of the lists, however Outdoor advertising is mentioned under the functions of the local government.

But this is not to say the constitutionality of the entire ARCON Act is in doubt because it can be rightly argued—as I hinted at in my first article— that a joint read of Item 49, 66 and 68 of the

exclusive lists confers the federal government with legislative powers over Advertising. The question here however is of the extent of that legislative power.

The provisions of Item 1(K)(I) of the functions of the local government council explicitly

bestows the power to control and regulate Outdoor advertising to the local government council, not the federal government as against the blanket provision of Sections 8 of the ARCON Act.

In the locus classicus case of Attorney-General of Ogun State v Aberuagba.[4] the supreme court held that the matters contained in the residual list are matters which are out of the purview of the legislative power of the federal government, and are strictly within the residual legislative power of the state and local government.

Some may argue that advertising falls under ‘trade and commerce’ (Item 62 of the Exclusive List). But advertising regulation is evidently distinct from trade regulation. The Constitution explicitly assigns ‘outdoor advertising’ to local governments, making it clear that advertising is intended to be a residual matter.”

Clearly, ARCON’s attempt to regulate all forms of advertising exceeds its constitutional limits. Some writers have even further argued that contrary to the overarching provisions of the

ARCON Act that cuts across both professionals and individuals involved in self advertising, the

fact that the only express legal provision on advertising is under the powers of the local government, self-advertising should equally be regulated by Local government councils as self-advertisers don’t fall within the scope of Item 49 of the exclusive list. [5]

It is interesting to note that the topic of the extensive powers of the ARCON, is one of the

reasons why the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria Act(APCON)[6] which created the defunct Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON) was repealed as it had a limited

scope

In fact, this was the rationale behind the court’s decision in the cases of APCON V The Registered Trustees Of International Covenant Ministerial Council(ICMC) & Ors[7] and also the case of MIC Royal Limited V APCON[8] where APCON lost in both cases.

In attempting to fix this flaw, the ARCON Act overcorrected—expanding its regulatory scope in ways that raise even more constitutional concerns, including in the realm of religious freedom

ARCON Act Vs Right To Freedom of Religion

The topic of whether the powers of the APCON extended to religious institutions was one of the issues that the APCON faced.

In the case of APCON v. RTICMC in addition to the courts’ iteration that the APCON Act did not extend to non-advertising practitioners (which the ARCON out now included in an erroneous manner as I explained in the prequel to this article) MARY U. PETER-ODILI, J.C.A (as she then was) said inter alia that

“…the respondent(i.e APCON) does not possess the requisite knowledge on Islamic matters, traditional religion or Biblical teachings as contained in Holy Bible to be able to regulate the practice of the various religions”

This clearly highlights the limitation of APCON’s powers, as Section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The right also includes the right to propagate one’s religion. Prior censorship of religious messages under the ARCON Act creates an undue restriction on this right, contrary to the principles upheld in this case, and a

plethora of other cases.

And so in a bid to bridge this gap, the ARCON act simply went ahead to encompass all

advertisements from every walk of life save obituaries and vacancies. This can be found in

Article 24 Code of Advertising 2023 which the council is empowered to make by Section 9(B) of the ARCON Act.

Although it is not expressly stated therein that religious advertisements must be subjected to prior vetting, going by the interpretation principle of

“expressio unius est exclusio alterius” since the only exemptions stated are for Obituaries and Vacancies it goes without saying that religious advertisements are expected to be submitted to the ASP for prior approval before publication.

Sadly, the drafters of the ARCON Act failed to draw their attention to the fact that requiring

religious advertisements to be submitted for vetting before publication constitutes a censorship to their right to freedom to propagate their religion.

The right to propagation of one’s religion is a corollary of the right to freedom of religion which is one of the fundamental human rights[9]. And while some might argue that there are religious adverts that need to be scrutinized, ARCON act should have instead prohibited certain practices related to religious advertising (as it has done in Articles 77-78 of the Nigerian Code of Advertising 2023) and leave it at that. Thereafter it can prosecute whoever violates them instead

of going by prior restraint, which is actually contrary to the said world best practices it seeks to emulate.

Having seen the error of the power of the ARCON extending to all fields, another effect of it having such broad powers leads us to the next issue below.

ARCON Act V Right to Privacy (Section 37 1999 CFRN)

Relating back to the first discussion of the unconstitutionality of the ARCON Act extending to outdoor advertising, the powers of the ARCON still impinges on a more modern form of advertisement that is protected by Section 37 of the 1999 constitution.[10]

Thanks to technology (and even A.I), learning and practicing advertising has become so widespread and easy that it is no more difficult than making a post on social media.

With the aid of the internet, advertising has moved from being on just radios, billboards and tvs. Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Tik tok, LinkedIn, Google, etc that are used on a daily basis as the foremost channels via which adverts are placed. As a matter of fact, even on less formal platforms like whatsapp, ads are equally run there through Whatsapp Tvs, and on accounts with large contact lists.

However, the most pertinent issue here is Email marketing which is a rising trend among big brands in the marketing space. Companies and individuals who in the past solely relied on social media platforms to build and market their audience have taken a turn to utilising email marketing, for reasons we will be considering below.

Email marketing is basically the act of marketing one’s brand, goods and/or services via emails. The popularity and acceptability of this form of marketing is growing every passing day because of the autonomy it provides the owner of such email lists. Unlike on social media where a brand account can be banned for a violation, or even in instances such as the 2021 Twitter ban where Nigerians could no longer reach their audience, email marketing provides the owner of the audience (called an email list) the freedom to communicate with members of the list from anywhere, any day, any time, without any limitation whatsoever.And just like social media platforms, the members of the list can be in thousands or more as there are virtually no limitations.

Now this trend which is increasingly used by not just brands but ecommerce agencies and whatnot would automatically fall within the purview of marketing as provided in the ARCON Act [11]

According to statistics published by Shopify in 2024, There were 4.48 billion global email users in 2024, and analysts expected that number to reach 4.89 billion by 2027. But that’s not all because according to the statistics, 44% of marketing professionals said email is their most effective marketing channel—which is a greater percentage than for any other channel. Even social media and paid search were tied for second place at 16% each.[12]

Although this research was not conducted in Nigeria, it would be fool-hardy to opine that such would hardly be the case in the nation that has the largest economy in the continent of Africa.

That said, the question of the right to privacy comes to mind. Unlike social media where communications are published to all and sundry to see, even non-followers, this is not the case in email marketing.

Just like your regular emails, marketing emails are bulk sent using Email service providers(ESP) to the inbox of only persons subscribed to the email list, thus making them private communication protected by Section 37.

This raises critical questions: Does ARCON expect every single marketing email to undergo vetting before being sent? If so, how does this align with the constitutional right to privacy under Section 37?

Moreover, even if ARCON’s vetting process were theoretically justifiable, it raises serious enforcement challenges. Would marketers be required to submit every single email campaign for approval?

And assuming without conceding that this is legitimate, how does the ARCON hope to vet every email of the thousands of marketers we have in Nigeria?

Given that thousands of marketing emails are sent daily, ARCON lacks the institutional capacity to enforce such regulation, making this provision not only unconstitutional but practically unenforceable.

Conclusively, Self-advertising and marketing has become so easy and commonplace that requiring all ads to be submitted and vetted by the ASP would be next to impossible. And it doesn’t stop there.

This content of the ARCON Act further suggests that the scope of the provisions of the ARCON Act even extends beyond Nigerians to include foreigner whose ads are exposed or directed to Nigerians.[13] This only worsens the impracticality of the ARCON Act amidst the arguably oppressive and downright restrictive provisions contained therein.

In the case of AG Lagos V AGF[14], it was held that no legislation passed by the National Assembly shall breach or be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. While fundamental rights are not absolute under Section 45 of the 1999 Constitution, their derogation must serve a legitimate democratic purpose. The ARCON Act, however, fails to meet this threshold, imposing broad and impractical restrictions that erode at least four fundamental human rights. If left unamended, it risks dragging Nigeria backward into an era of overregulation and state overreach.

In the case of IGP V ANPP[15] where a similar act was declared unconstitutional due to its inconsistency with the constitution as seen in the ARCON Act, ADEKEYE, J.C.A. (as he then was) commented in reference to the said act that:

“I am persuaded by the incident cited by the learned counsel for the respondents that Nigerian Society is ripe and ready to be liberated from our oppressive past.”

It would appear that if the ARCON Act is not amended, it would inevitably lead us to the dreaded oppressive past.

It may also appear that this writer analysed the content of the ARCON Act using the literal rule of interpretation, and so some might argue that the courts rely on the Golden rule of interpretation instead to avoid this obvious absurdities therein. However, even judicial interpretation cannot resolve all the constitutional flaws in the ARCON Act. Only a well-thought-out amendment can provide a lasting solution to its overreach.

---

References

1-Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act, 2022 2-Section 8(a) ARCON Act 2022

3-(1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 3) 395.

4-(2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265

5- Self-Advertising Under Scrutiny: Exploring ARCON’s Boundaries. https://tnp.com.ng/insights/self-advertising-under-scrutiny-exploring-arcons-boundaries

6- Advertising Practitioners (Registration, etc.) Act, Cap. A7, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

7- APCON V THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANT MINISTERIAL COUNCIL(ICMC) & ORS (2010)LCN/3910(CA)

8- MIC Royal Limited V APCON (2018)LCN/11854(CA)

9- Section 40 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal

10- Section 37 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

11- SECTION 9B ARCON Act 2022

12- https://www.shopify.com/ng/blog/email-marketing-statistics

13- Advertising Law: 2022 Federal Legislation and Social Media(Published by G. Elias in 2022) 14-[(2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 833) 1 at 194]

15- I.G.P. v. A.N.P.P. (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 457 (Pp. 494-495, paras. H-A)

---

About Author