The improvement adopted a Facebook put up in which she reportedly criticised the police over their therapy of her mother and father.
The National President of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ, Alhassan Yahaya Abdullahi, stated in a press release issued on Thursday that the circumstances surrounding Farida’s ordeal raised elementary questions on freedom of expression, private liberty, due course of and the protection of residents towards the potential misuse of public authority.
Abdullahi stated Farida reportedly deleted the put up and apologised however was subsequently taken earlier than a courtroom in Kawo and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment or a tremendous of ₦1.75 million for defamation.
According to him, the intervention of attorneys following the reported proceedings prevented her rapid switch to a correctional centre.
He added that she was subsequently granted bail, whereas a retrial had been scheduled for November 3, 2026.
While welcoming Farida’s launch on bail, the NUJ harassed that the event shouldn’t be mistaken for a decision of the problems surrounding her case.
The Union stated it might proceed to observe developments and advocate for a fair, clear and lawful judicial course of.
Abdullahi cited Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, which ensures freedom of expression, together with the freedom to carry opinions and obtain and impart concepts and knowledge with out interference, topic to the Constitution and relevant legal guidelines.
“Sections 35 and 36 also protect personal liberty and the right to a fair hearing. These constitutional guarantees are fundamental to a democratic society. They protect not only journalists but every Nigerian who wishes to express an opinion, question the conduct of public institutions or seek redress for an alleged injustice,” he stated.
The NUJ acknowledged that journalists weren’t above the regulation and that freedom of expression didn’t confer immunity from lawful penalties.
However, it maintained that allegations of defamation have to be dealt with in accordance with the regulation, with due regard for constitutional safeguards, the rights of all events and the necessities of a fair listening to.
The Union stated it was significantly involved concerning the implications of the case for press freedom and the security of journalists.
It harassed that each time a journalist confronted legal proceedings following criticism of public officers, the circumstances needs to be fastidiously examined to make sure that lawful accountability was not undermined and that the authorized course of didn’t develop into a supply of intimidation.
“Public institutions must remain open to legitimate scrutiny. Criticism of the police or any other public institution should be addressed through lawful and appropriate procedures, not through actions that could discourage citizens from reporting misconduct or expressing legitimate grievances,” the assertion added.
The Union maintained that defending journalists was inseparable from defending the general public’s proper to know.
It famous that when journalists confronted intimidation for reporting on issues of public curiosity or expressing respectable considerations, the results prolonged past the people involved and threatened the democratic area accessible to all residents.
The NUJ, due to this fact, referred to as for equity, restraint, accountability and respect for due course of in dealing with Farida’s case.
It stated her launch on bail was welcome however harassed that the forthcoming retrial have to be performed in a way that impressed public confidence in the administration of justice.
The Union additionally urged the related authorities to make sure that the circumstances surrounding her arrest, the reported detention of her mother and father and the preliminary courtroom proceedings have been addressed via acceptable authorized and institutional channels.
