Civil society organisations—Global Rights, the Open Society Initiative Foundation, TAP Initiative and the Network of University Legal Aid Institutions (NULAI) Nigeria—have moved to legally challenge provisions of the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, insisting that certain sections violate the constitutional right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution.
Speaking during an interactive session with journalists at the weekend, the groups argued that some of the powers granted to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) conflict with constitutional protections on freedom of association, fair hearing, and the safeguarding of civic space.
Noya Sedi, Project Manager at Global Rights, said the litigation extends beyond civil society organisations, stressing that all citizens should be concerned when laws are enacted in ways that restrict civil liberties.
She noted that the objective of the case is to ensure regulatory powers under CAMA 2020 are exercised strictly within constitutional boundaries and do not undermine the autonomy and operations of incorporated trustees and civil society organisations in Nigeria.
The plaintiffs in the case include the incorporated trustees of Global Rights, Advocates of Sustainable Justice, and TAP Initiative, while the defendants are the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Corporate Affairs Commission, and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
The suit specifically challenges Section 824, which deals with CAC’s power to determine classification of associations; Section 824(4), which covers CAC authority over objections to the registration of incorporated trustees; and Section 850(1)(d) and (2)(e), which relate to the dissolution and revocation of registration powers.
One of the lawyers to the CSOs, Professor Sam Erugo (SAN), said some of the provisions breach constitutional guarantees by allowing the CAC to sanction incorporated trustees without judicial oversight.
“What we advocate is litigation, not arbitrary punishment,” he said, warning that such powers could be abused if unchecked.
He also confirmed that the case suffered an initial setback at the Federal High Court in October 2025, but the plaintiffs have proceeded on appeal.
Explaining the outcome at the trial court, Prof Erugo said the judge upheld the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to institute the suit and failed to demonstrate direct injury from the contested provisions.
He added that in public interest litigation, courts often rely on locus standi to dismiss cases without addressing the substantive issues, noting that this sometimes occurs to avoid conflict with other arms of government.
However, he maintained that the Constitution allows citizens to approach the court where there is a likelihood of future violation of rights.
He further argued that many public interest cases fail at the initial stage due to financial constraints, but said the organisations were now better supported.
“We are ready to test the law all the way to the Supreme Court,” he said.
The CSOs confirmed that following a technical review of the judgment, they filed a notice of appeal on January 2 this year, and that the records were compiled and filed at the Court of Appeal on January 29.
Barrister Innocent Lagi, also counsel to the plaintiffs, argued that CAMA 2020 effectively places the CAC in the position of “accuser, prosecutor and judge,” describing the arrangement as inconsistent with constitutional fair hearing guarantees.
He said: “We have the constitutional right to challenge any law that seeks to abridge the rights of the citizen, whether they are NGOs or individuals. Defending the inalienable tights of the citizen is in itself a valid locus standi and we shall test the CAMA provisions that breach these rights in court. The National Assembly cannot grant them powers they should not have.
“The body that makes accusations against the NGOs should not be the one to apply the punishment without giving the NGOs a hearing before a different body – the court.
“Instead of just imposing fines or dissolving the executive of incorporated trustees, the CAC should sue the CSO before a judge who would determine if a breach has been committed or not before the stated punishment is applied.”
He further maintained that the practice of unilateral sanctions without court involvement violates the right to fair hearing, describing it as a fundamental principle of justice.
According to him, “There are extenuating factors in laws, and one wonders how such factors can be considered when no hearing is held on the alleged infraction.”
