Media Rights Agen-da (MRA) and the International Press Centre (IPC) have appealed a Federal High Court judgment in Abuja that dismissed their suit. The suit sought to compel the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to investigate a com-plaint they filed on April 24, 2021, against then-Ebonyi State Governor David Umahi. They alleged that Umahi abused his office and violated his oath by ordering a journal-ist’s arrest and banning two journalists for life from all gov-ernment facilities in the state. In a Notice of Appeal filed by their lawyer, Mr. Noah Ajare, at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, MRA and IPC ex-pressed their dissatisfaction. The judge had stated that MRA and IPC failed to provide credible evidence that their pe-tition was delivered to the CCB and its Chairman. The judge also questioned whether the organisations were “crying more than the be-reaved” since the affected jour-nalists hadn’t filed complaints with the CCB themselves. Justice Egwuatu’s judg-ment stemmed from a suit filed by MRA and IPC on November 10, 2021, after the CCB failed to act on their joint petition sub-mitted on April 24, 2021, and a follow-up on October 21, 2021. In the suit, MRA and IPC requested the court to issue a mandamus order compelling the CCB to fulfil its duties as outlined in the Third Schedule to the Constitution, specifically Paragraph 3(e), and to investi-gate their complaint against Mr. Umahi. In their four-point Notice of Appeal, MRA and IPC are asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the Federal High Court’s decision delivered on November 29, 2024, and to up-hold their appeal. Their first ground of appeal argued that the Federal High Court erred by holding that they didn’t provide credible evidence that their letters of complaint were served on the CCB and its Chairman. They contend that the court failed to properly consider the evidence they presented, in-cluding the email sent to the CCB’s official email address and courier evidence (waybill number 7186272155) establish-ing service on October 21, 2021. They added that the court overlooked testimonies and documents corroborating the claim of proper service. Secondly, MRA and IPC ar-gue that the court misdirect-ed itself in ruling that they lacked the locus standi (legal standing) to bring the action on behalf of the journalists. They assert that, as organ-isations dedicated to media rights and freedom of expres-sion, they inherently possess the standing to advocate for the public interest. Furthermore, they argue that the court didn’t adequate-ly consider the implications of public interest and the role of NGOs in promoting account-ability and transparency. Thirdly, the organisations complain that the court erred by dismissing the case without properly considering the sub-stantial public interest issues they raised regarding freedom of expression, good gover-nance, and accountability. They argue that the court didn’t address the implica-tions of the CCB’s alleged failure to act on the complaint, which relates to societal ac-countability. They contend that the court’s dismissal of their suit on technical grounds under-mined the merit of the sub-stantive issues at hand, partic-ularly those concerning public well-being and governance. MRA and IPC allege that the court wrongfully dis-missed their case without evaluating whether the CCB and its Chairman failed in their duty to investigate the allegations. They argued that the court erroneously concluded that the lack of proof of service negat-ed the entire case, rather than considering the responsibility of the CCB and its Chairman to address complaints from the public. The organisations further contended that the court’s dis-missal of their suit ignored established principles regard-ing the duty of public bodies to investigate legitimate public complaints. No date has been scheduled for the hearing of the appeal.