The Global Rights, an international civil society organisation (CSO) and other partners, have urged the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), Senate President, Senator Godswill Akpabio; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Abbas Tajudeen, and Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, to resolve some unfair provisions in the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020.
They made the call on Thursday in Abuja at a media an stakeholders’ roundtable on “Strategic Litigation and the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020”.
Other partners apart from Global Rights who made the call are TAP Initiative, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) and Network of University Legal Aid Institutions (NULAI) Nigeria.
The coalition have also challenged certain provisions of the CAMA ACT in a public interest litigation, insisting that they undermine the constitutional right to a fair hearing in Nigeria.
The coalition is kicking against specific sections of CAMA 2020, especially Section 824, which empowers the CAC to classify associations; Section 824(4), which grants it authority over objections to the registration of trustees; and Sections 850(1)(d) and 850(2)(e), which deal with the dissolution of organisations and withdrawal of registration.
The groups said some powers conferred on the CAC conflict with constitutional protections such as freedom of association, the right to fair hearing, and the safeguarding of civic space.
Project manager at Global Rights, Noya Sedi, said the legal action goes beyond the interests of CSOs, saying that any law capable of restricting civil liberties -whether affecting individuals or groups—should concern all Nigerians.
“The goal of the lawsuit is to ensure that regulatory authority, under CAMA 2020, remains within constitutional boundaries and does not unjustifiably limit the independence and functioning of incorporated trustees and non-profits,” she said.
She noted that though the case initially suffered a setback at the Federal High Court in October 2025, the legal team has proceeded to appeal the ruling.
According to her, following a detailed review of the judgment, they filed a notice of appeal on January 2, with records subsequently transmitted to the Court of Appeal on January 29.
“The idea behind this roundtable is simple: bring this conversation into the public domain. We can’t restrict it to just the CSO space, because this issue affects every Nigerian -simply by virtue of being Nigerian, being protected by our Constitution, and being entitled to rights in this country.
“To create a space where everyone is informed, everyone is aware, and everyone understands what’s at stake in this case -and what it means for the rights of the average Nigerian,” she said.
Sedi, asked what the case is about, said, “We are contesting specific provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), that confer certain powers on the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC). We believe these provisions directly contravene the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights -including the right to freedom of association, the right to fair hearing, and other civic protections.
“Let me give one example. If a provision of CAMA allows the CAC to shut down a company for failing to file returns or pay dues, without giving that company an opportunity for fair hearing, then that directly violates the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees every Nigerian the right to be fairly heard.
“That is just one example. There are other instances where the CAC’s powers under CAMA are not in consonance with the Constitution. And as we know, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Every other statute must bow to it. We are seeking an amendment of those specific provisions so they better protect the rights of Nigerians -both individuals and companies.
“At the Federal High Court in Lagos, the case was not even heard on its merits as a preliminary objection was upheld. The court ruled that the claimant lacked legal standing and had not demonstrated direct impact. That is why we are now at the Court of Appeal.”
On his part, Barrister Innocent Lagi, a legal practitioner, said the law effectively makes the CAC the complainant, prosecutor, and judge in matters involving civil society groups, describing this concentration of authority as inconsistent with constitutional principles of fair hearing.
According to him, any organisation accused of wrongdoing should be entitled to have its case heard before an impartial court rather than being subjected to unilateral sanctions by the regulator, adding that penalties such as fines or dissolution should only follow a judicial determination of liability.
Lagi criticised the current practice, saying it allows the CAC to impose punishments without due process, thereby undermining a fundamental principle of justice, even as he questioned how mitigating circumstances could be considered in the absence of a proper hearing.
Also speaking at the event, Legal counsel to the plaintiffs, Prof. Sam Erugo, SAN, said the aforementioned provisions violate constitutional safeguards by allowing the CAC to penalise organisations without judicial oversight.
According to him, disputes should be resolved through litigation rather than administrative sanctions, warning that unchecked powers could be misused.
He said the lower court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi -meaning they failed to demonstrate a direct personal impact from the contested provisions.
Prof. Erugo said courts often rely on such technical grounds in public interest cases to avoid delving into substantive issues, sometimes out of caution not to conflict with other branches of government.
He said that the Constitution permits individuals to seek judicial protection where their rights may be threatened, even prospectively.
Discover more from TheTimes Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
