See Why Civil Society, Rights Groups Want ‘Controversial’ Companies Law Amended
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have called on the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the National Assembly (NASS), and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) to amend provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 they describe as unconstitutional and harmful to civic freedoms.
The groups—including Global Rights, the TAP Initiative, the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), and the Network of University Legal Aid Institutions (NULAI) Nigeria—made the call during a media and stakeholders’ roundtable held in Abuja, where concerns were raised over the law’s implications for civil society operations and democratic engagement.
According to the organisations, some sections of CAMA 2020 grant excessive regulatory powers to the CAC, potentially violating constitutional rights such as freedom of association and the right to fair hearing.
Among the disputed provisions are Section 824, which allows the classification of associations; Section 824(4), which empowers the CAC to determine objections to trustee registration; and Sections 850(1)(d) and 850(2)(e), which address the dissolution and withdrawal of organisational registration.
Project Manager at Global Rights Nigeria, Noya Sedi, said the legal challenge extends beyond civil society groups, stressing that any law capable of restricting civil liberties should concern all Nigerians.
She explained that the objective of the suit is to ensure that the regulatory authority granted under CAMA remains within constitutional limits and does not undermine the independence of non-profit organisations and incorporated trustees.
Legal counsel to the plaintiffs, Prof. Sam Erugo (SAN), argued that the contested provisions allow the CAC to impose sanctions without sufficient judicial oversight, warning that such powers could be abused if not subjected to court processes.
Similarly, legal practitioner Innocent Lagi criticised what he described as a concentration of powers in the CAC, noting that the framework effectively positions the regulator as complainant, prosecutor, and adjudicator—contrary to principles of fair hearing.
The CSOs noted that although the Federal High Court in Lagos dismissed the case in October 2025 on grounds of lack of locus standi, they have appealed the ruling, with the matter now before the Court of Appeal.
They maintained that aligning CAMA with constitutional provisions is essential to protecting civic space and strengthening democratic principles in Nigeria.
