Appeal Court Upholds Nullification Of CAMA Provisions On CAC Powers Over Religious Bodies
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld a Federal High Court judgment nullifying key provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, CAMA 2020, which gave the Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC, powers to oversee the affairs of religious bodies and other incorporated trustees.
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has upheld a Federal High Court judgment nullifying key provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, CAMA 2020, which gave the Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC, powers to oversee the affairs of religious bodies and other incorporated trustees.
A Certified True Copy, CTC, of the judgement obtained. on Friday showed that a three-man panel of the appellate Court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on September 17, held that sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847 and 848 of CAMA infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, association and peaceful assembly.
Justice Okorowo, who read the lead judgment, held that voluntary associations are supreme in managing their internal affairs and that courts should not interfere except where they act contrary to their own constitutions.
The court also affirmed that constitutional lawyer Emmanuel Ekpenyong had the locus standi to challenge the law.
Controversy had trailed the amended CAMA since former President Muhammadu Buhari signed it into law in August 2020.
The new law had some provisions dealing with incorporated trustees – covering churches, mosques, charities, NGOs and associations leading to strong opposition from religious bodies among others.
Section 839 of CAMA 2020, in particular, empowered CAC to suspend trustees and appoint interim managers over alleged financial misconduct or fraud in public interest.
However, the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, had feared government overreach, even as the CAC insisted its powers were not arbitrary and subject to judicial review.
But, Ekpenyong, of Fred Young & Evans LP, filed the suit on August 31, 2020 at the Federal High Court in Abuja joining the National Assembly, CAC and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, as defendants, arguing the provisions violated his rights under Sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution.
—High Court judgment—
In April 2023, Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the matter, agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the powers under sections 839 to 848 excessive and unconstitutional.
Omotosho, also nullified Section 851, which gave the Administrative Proceedings Committee powers to determine CAMA matters, holding it conflicted with Section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution which vests jurisdiction in the Federal High Court.
CAC, through its lawyer Jibrin Okutepa SAN, later appealed against the judgement.
During the proceedings on appeal, the CAC argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case and that Ekpenyong had no locus standi to file the case in court.
The Court of Appeal has however agreed in large part with the Ekpenyong.
The court held that the disputed provisions infringed rights under Sections 38 and 40 and were not reasonably justifiable under Section 45(1) of the Constitution.
The appellate Court, therefore affirmed the nullification of sections 839 and 842 to 848 of CAMA 2020.
The court, however, modified the lower court’s decision on Section 851, declaring it as unconstitutional only to the extent that it purports to give the Administrative Proceedings Committee power to determine at first instance, to the exclusion of the Federal High Court, justiciable disputes under CAMA and impose penalties like a court.
The court also affirmed that constitutional lawyer Emmanuel Ekpenyong had the locus standi to challenge the law.
Controversy had trailed the amended CAMA since former President Muhammadu Buhari signed it into law in August 2020.
The new law had some provisions dealing with incorporated trustees – covering churches, mosques, charities, NGOs and associations leading to strong opposition from religious bodies among others.
Section 839 of CAMA 2020, in particular, empowered CAC to suspend trustees and appoint interim managers over alleged financial misconduct or fraud in public interest.
However, the Christian Association of Nigeria, CAN, had feared government overreach, even as the CAC insisted its powers were not arbitrary and subject to judicial review.
But, Ekpenyong, of Fred Young & Evans LP, filed the suit on August 31, 2020 at the Federal High Court in Abuja joining the National Assembly, CAC and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, as defendants, arguing the provisions violated his rights under Sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution.
—High Court judgment—
In April 2023, Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the matter, agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the powers under sections 839 to 848 excessive and unconstitutional.
Omotosho, also nullified Section 851, which gave the Administrative Proceedings Committee powers to determine CAMA matters, holding it conflicted with Section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution which vests jurisdiction in the Federal High Court.
CAC, through its lawyer Jibrin Okutepa SAN, later appealed against the judgement.
During the proceedings on appeal, the CAC argued that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case and that Ekpenyong had no locus standi to file the case in court.
The Court of Appeal has however agreed in large part with the Ekpenyong.
The court held that the disputed provisions infringed rights under Sections 38 and 40 and were not reasonably justifiable under Section 45(1) of the Constitution.
The appellate Court, therefore affirmed the nullification of sections 839 and 842 to 848 of CAMA 2020.
The court, however, modified the lower court’s decision on Section 851, declaring it as unconstitutional only to the extent that it purports to give the Administrative Proceedings Committee power to determine at first instance, to the exclusion of the Federal High Court, justiciable disputes under CAMA and impose penalties like a court.
“The remaining administrative and regulatory functions of the committee subsist, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Federal High Court,” the court held.
The court also affirmed Ekpenyong’s standing “on the narrow basis of his personal interest and membership of a registered religious association.”
Justices Abba Mohammed and Eberechi Nyesom Wike concurred.
The judgment, has therefore restricted the CAC’s regulatory powers over incorporated trustees where such powers conflict with constitutional freedoms, while preserving its general regulatory role.
The court also affirmed Ekpenyong’s standing “on the narrow basis of his personal interest and membership of a registered religious association.”
Justices Abba Mohammed and Eberechi Nyesom Wike concurred.
The judgment, has therefore restricted the CAC’s regulatory powers over incorporated trustees where such powers conflict with constitutional freedoms, while preserving its general regulatory role.
What's Your Reaction?
