An international Organisation birthed from the pursuit of justice, equity and human rights has challenged specific provisions of the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), arguing that these regulations compromise the constitutional right to a fair hearing in Nigeria.
The Civil Society Organisation, Global Rights in conjunction with several other groups—TAP Initiative, the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), and the Network of University Legal Aid Institutions (NULAI) Nigeria—joined forces in a public interest litigation expressing concern that certain powers granted to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) conflict with constitutional protections, including freedom of association, the right to a fair hearing, and the safeguarding of civic space.
During a media roundtable held in Abuja yesterday Friday, representatives from the organizations have therefore called upon key governmental figures, including the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Abbas Tajudeen, and Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, to address provisions in the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 that are deemed unfair.
Speaking at the event, Noya Sedi, a project manager at Global Rights, emphasized that the legal action extends beyond the interests of CSOs, asserting that laws limiting civil liberties—whether impacting individuals or groups—should be a matter of concern for all Nigerians.
She asserted that the goal of the lawsuit is to ensure that the regulatory authority under CAMA 2020 remains within constitutional boundaries and does not unjustifiably hinder the independence and operations of incorporated trustees and non-profits.
The CSOs are specifically opposed to certain sections of CAMA 2020, notably Section 824, which empowers the CAC to classify associations; Section 824(4), which grants the CAC authority over objections to the registration of trustees; and Sections 850(1)(d) and 850(2)(e), which address the dissolution of organizations and withdrawal of registration.
Although the case faced an initial setback at the Federal High Court in October 2025, the legal team has since filed an appeal against that ruling.
Legal counsel for the plaintiffs, Prof. Sam Erugo (SAN), conveyed to journalists during the roundtable that the contested provisions violate constitutional safeguards by allowing the CAC to penalize organizations without judicial oversight.
He advocated that disputes should be resolved through litigation rather than administrative sanctions, cautioning that unchecked powers could be misused.
Prof. Erugo noted that the lower court dismissed the case based on the plaintiffs’ lack of locus standi, indicating they had not demonstrated a direct personal impact from the provisions in question.
He explained that courts often lean on technical grounds in public interest cases to avoid addressing substantive issues, sometimes out of deference to the other branches of government.
He reiterated that the Constitution permits individuals to seek judicial protection when their rights are threatened, even in a prospective context.
