A constitutional lawyer and human rights crusader, Emmanuel Ekpenyong, has asked the Court of Appeal, Abuja, to dismiss an appeal filed by the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to challenge a lower court’s judgement that nullified some sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020.
It would be recalled that Justice James Omotoso of a Federal High Court, sitting in Abuja, had, on April 18, 2023, nullified some sections of CAMA, 2020, considered to infringe on the fundamental human rights of persons in Nigeria, following a suit filed by Ekpenyong.
The lawyer, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1076/2020, with the National Assembly, CAC, and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice (AGF) as the 1st to 3rd defendants, prayed to the court to determine whether the provisions of Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, and 851 of CAMA infringed on his freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, and right to access the Court as guaranteed under Section 38, Section 40, as well as Section 4 (8), Section 6 (6) (b), Section 36 (1), and Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Justice Omotoso, in the judgement, agreed with Ekpenyong that the powers granted to CAC to regulate and administer incorporated trustees in Nigeria under Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, and 848 of CAMA 2020 infringed on his right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
The Judge, who held that the lawyer had the legal right to institute the suit, struck down Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848 and Section 851 of CAMA 2020, declaring same to be null and void, having been inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, the CAC, in its Notice of Appeal filed on June 9, 2023, by Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) with Ekpenyong and AGF as 1st and 2nd Respondents, gave five grounds why the appeal should be allowed and the judgement delivered by the trial court be set aside.
In one of the grounds, it argued that Justice Omotoso erred in law when he entertained Ekpenyong’s claim under the fundamental rights action, even when it was apparent from the claim filed that he lacked the legal right to have instituted the action.
The CAC wants the appellate court to determine “whether, from the totality of the evidence, the trial court was correct in holding that Ekpenyong was able to prove that Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, and 848 of CAMA infringed on his fundamental rights,” among others.
The Commission, therefore, submitted that the trial Judge was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction, heard and determined the case of the 1st respondent, and then granted all the reliefs in the originating summons and urged the court to uphold the appeal.
Ekpenyong, in his brief of argument filed on March 28, 2024, raises four issues for the determination of the court
They are, “Whether the wide powers granted to the appellant (CAC), an agency of the executive arm of the Federal Government of Nigeria under Sections 839, 842, and 848 of CAMA to remove the leadership of religious associations and other Incorporated Trustees under any guise and replace them with whoever it pleases as interim managers as well as manage the affairs and accounts of such associations is draconian, unconstitutional and an infringement of the 1st respondent’s fundamental human rights?
“Whether the combined provisions of Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848 and 851 of CAMA, which grants the appellant too much powers over religious associations and other Incorporated Trustees and empower the appellant to act based on its own whims to interfere in the management of religious associations and other incorporated trustees, is reasonably justified in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy?
“Whether, in light of the provision of Section 4(8), Section 6(6)(b), Section 36(1) and Section 251 (1) (e) of the Nigerian Constitution, the provisions of Section 851 of the CAMA 2020, which gives the appellant powers to oust and usurp the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, is unconstitutional?
“Whether religious associations and other incorporated trustees, as a vehicle by which the 1st respondent and other Nigerians exercise their fundamental human rights enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution, must be overburdened with too many restrictions and laws to fetter their liberty?”
Ekpenyong, in his argument, submitted that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the freedom of association and peaceful assembly, constituted one of the pillars of a democratic society.
contended that Sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution provide freedom for him to exercise his thoughts, conscience and religion either alone by himself or in association with those who share his faith and beliefs.
The lawyer said the excessive powers granted to CAC, an agency of government, by the offending provisions of CAMA, 2020, to suspend trustees of his religious association and other Incorporated Trustees and appoint interim managers of its own choice who may not profess the same beliefs with him or belong to his association and powers to even manage the accounts of the association, are provocative, draconian, and barbaric.
According to him, it is also an affront to Nigeria’s Constitution, which granted freedoms to the first respondent and other persons in Nigeria in the first place.
He argued that the limitation of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and peaceful assembly and association under Section 45 of the constitution is to prevent anarchy by ensuring that persons in Nigeria practice their religion and beliefs without infringing on others’ freedoms.
“Since the offending provisions of CAMA 2020 infringed on the 1st respondent’s constitutional and fundamental human rights, which are capable of retrogressing Nigeria back to the dark days of the draconian military regime, the trial court was right in law to strike down the offending provisions of CAMA 2020 in order to safeguard the constitutional freedom of the 1st respondent and other persons in Nigeria,” he argued.
The AGF, who is the second respondent, has yet to file his brief of argument, and no date has been fixed for hearing the appeal.
ALSO READ THESE TOP STORIES FROM TheWitness
