Court stops ARCON from imposing N60bn fine on Facebook

“It is hereby ordered as follows: That an Interim order of
Injunction is hereby made pending the determination of the motion on notice
herein filed for interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant whether by
itself or through its officers, agents, servants and any other person acting
under its authority from enforcing or further enforcing in any manner
whatsoever the notice of violation/demand for compliance dated 21 October 2024
issued by the defendant to the applicant.

“I strongly feel the second relief sought is subsumed in the
first relief.”

Bogoro, therefore, adjourned the matter to February 20,
2025, for a hearing.

RELIEF TO STOP
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Facebook had sought two reliefs, with the first being an
interim order of injunction, pending the determination of the motion on notice
for interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendant, “whether by itself or
through any person acting under its authority from enforcing or further
enforcing in any manner whatsoever the Notice of Violation/Demand for
Compliance dated 21st October 2024 issued by the Defendant to the applicant”.

The second relief sought an interim order of injunction
restraining ARCON, whether by itself or through its prosecutors or anyone
acting under its authority, “from instituting or commencing criminal
proceedings in the Advertising Offences Tribunal to prosecute the Applicant,
its officers, agents or representatives, with respect to the allegations and/or
decisions made by the Defendant and/or subject matter of the Notice of
Violation/Demand for Compliance dated 21st October 2024 issued by the Defendant
to the Applicant”.

In seeking the reliefs, the applicant filed 11 grounds for
the application.

The microblogging company had said ARCON issued it a notice
of violation and demand for compliance dated October 21, 2024, making certain
allegations and decisions against Facebook, including imposing the N60 billion
fine.

However, Facebook challenged “the constitutionality of the
ARCON Notice based on grounds of denial of fair hearing, its unlawfulness under
the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act 2022 (ARCON Act) and as an
ultra vires act of the Defendant”.

“The defendant threatened that it will enforce the ARCON
Notice against the Applicant by criminal prosecution in the advertising
offences tribunal if the Applicant does not satisfy its demands,” the
application reads.

“The applicant issued a statutory pre-action notice
demanding the Defendant to withdraw the threat of enforcement, yet the
Defendant has not done so.

“Order Vill Rule I of the Advertising Offences Tribunal
Practice Direction mandates that a hearing in the Tribunal must be completed
within 180 days of filing the charge.

“Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act
2015, which applies in the Tribunal, prohibits the grant of an order for a stay
of proceedings in a criminal matter.

“The Defendant appoints the prosecutor in the Tribunal,
while the Chairman and other members of the Tribunal were appointed on the
recommendation of the defendant.”

Facebook also said it would be vexatious and oppressive to
the applicant and unconscionable for the defendant to initiate criminal
proceedings against the applicant based on the allegations and decisions made
by the defendant in the notice.

Also, the applicant’s suit challenging the constitutionality
and legality of the ARCON Notice is pending in the court.

On July 19, a federal high court in Abuja struck out a suit
filed by the ARCON against Meta Platforms Incorporated, owners of Facebook,
Instagram, and WhatsApp social media channels.

In October 2022, ARCON sued Meta and its agent, AT3
Resources Limited, for showing unapproved advertisements to the Nigerian
audience.