Osamede Uwubanmwen, President of the Advertisers Association of Nigeria (ADVAN), has criticised the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) for its contradictory stance on two court judgments regarding the regulation of outdoor advertising and hoardings.

In an interviewwith MARKETING EDGE, Uwubanmwen addressed the controversy surrounding Justice Akintayo Aluko’s ruling in Lagos and Justice Isa H. Dashen’s judgment in Lokoja, which have produced conflicting interpretations of ARCON’s regulatory authority over outdoor advertising.

The Double Standard on Judicial Competence

Uwubanmwen took issue with ARCON’s selective praise and criticism of Justice Aluko. “ARCON was very happy singing praises of Justice Aluko in the case of digital advertising regulations judgment,” he said. “Now the judgment says ARCON does not have the right to vet or regulate outdoor advertising, and ARCON is saying the judgment was a mistake, questioning the judge’s ability to understand English.”

The ADVAN president found this approach problematic. “I don’t think any judge or anybody that even studied law will not understand English, because English is something that you have to be very good at before you even go and do law,” he stated. “The same judge that you praised yesterday, you now question today.”

Uwubanmwen revealed that he had read ARCON’s official response questioning the judge’s knowledge of English. “Even as much as I have issues with certain judicial judgments, I would not want to question the same judge that you praised yesterday.”
Constitutional Interpretation and Legal Precedent

On the substantive legal issues, Uwubanmwen argued that Justice Aluko’s judgment correctly interpreted the constitutional provision. “The Constitution said advertising, comma, and hoarding. It’s clear that the Constitution made a distinction between them,” he explained. “The judge is very right when he says ARCON does not have the right to vet outdoor advertising or outdoor hoarding.”

He distinguished between advertising as a profession and advertising as a business. “Federal government has right to the profession of advertising. Profession and advertising business are two different things,” Uwubanmwen noted. “When they now want to relate that to commerce and trade, those arguments they have already lost in the Supreme Court lottery judgment.”

The ADVAN president emphasised that ARCON should focus on regulating the profession rather than business aspects. “In their years of being appointed, I don’t think they had up to four cases. In these few three years, they have close to 15 cases, and many more that you don’t even know of. That will tell you they have entered a terrain which everybody is saying they should not have entered.”
Historical Context and Tribunal Concerns

Uwubanmwen provided historical context dating back to 2004. “As far back as 2004, when we were having issues with local government boys, legal people advised my national company then that local governments have the right to regulate outdoor advertising,” he recalled.
A significant concern raised relates to ARCON’s tribunal system. “You say you are on the same level with the High Court, but every time the High Court grants an injunction against you, you obey it,” he pointed out. “If you are on the same level, how can the High Court give you an injunction?”

The Problem with ARCON’s Advertising Standards Panel

Uwubanmwen raised constitutional concerns about ARCON’s Advertising Standards Panel (ASP). “In Section 53 or 54 of the ARCON Act, the first thing said about the Advertising Standards Panel is that there must be no fewer than two members of the governing council,” he explained. “But there are no council members on the ASP currently. So is the ASP well constituted?”

He also questioned the panel’s operational efficiency. “The ASP is doing vetting once every month. I hear they are doing 14-hour sessions. Why are you doing administrative vetting when you can only sit once every month?”

Industry-Specific Regulators

The ADVAN president strongly argued for the importance of industry-specific regulators over ARCON’s centralized vetting approach. He explained why regulators like NAFDAC and CBN must maintain their vetting authority. “If I’m doing an ad for medicine, ARCON does not know anything about the constituents. That’s why industries have their own regulators that vet ads.”

He criticised ARCON’s attempt to include representatives from various regulatory bodies on the ASP. “ASP has one NAFDAC person seated on it, compared to the full team at NAFDAC that will vet advertisements,” Uwubanmwen explained. “The team includes the English expert, the medical person, the lab scientist. You cannot replace a full team with one representative.”

The Path Forward

Looking to the future, Uwubanmwen suggested that the advertising industry may need separate regulatory structures. “Eventually, it might take 10 years, it might take 20 years, but ADVAN will go and get its own regulator, because ARCON doesn’t even understand our business,” he stated.
Throughout the interview, Uwubanmwen emphasised the contradiction in ARCON’s approach. “Justice Aluko was right in the second judgment, in my view. But my question is: why are you questioning the second judgment and giving him thumbs up in the first judgment? You cannot clap for a judge in one instance and question his knowledge of English in another.”

He concluded with a broader perspective on regulatory overreach. “There’s nowhere in the world like ARCON. I was at their legal presentation, and the lawyer said it is the first of its kind. They tried to argue that there’s similar regulation in Ghana, America, the UK—but there isn’t.”

As the legal battle continues, the advertising industry watches closely to see how courts will ultimately define the boundaries of ARCON’s regulatory authority over outdoor advertising and whether the distinction between “advertising” and “hoarding” in the Constitution will be upheld.