Connect with us

Opinion

CAMA and the furore by religious leaders by Lateef Adewole

Published

on

cama

If there is one thing I have avoided dabbling into these past weeks, it was the new Companies and Allied Matters (CAMA) 2020 amendment issue, especially the controversies that some (not all) pastors have created around it. Many people have asked for my opinion but the best I did was to forward opinions of others to them. Since the CAMA amendment was signed into law by President Buhari on July 7, 2020, after 30 years of its enactment, hell was let loose by some pastors and Christians leaders.

They condemned the law and the government for it. Many even rained curses and made threats. While the amendment was majorly effected for the ease of doing business, some parts covered the “not-for-profit” organisations under which churches fall. They also include mosques, shrines, NGOs, schools, charity organisations, and the likes. There are about 870 sections in a 604-page document, but only few sections deal with these bodies.

However, one section stood out and that is Section 839. This deals with “suspension of trustees, appointment of interim managers, etc.” for non-profit making organisations based on some conditions precedent, as stated under that section. Unfortunately, many antagonists of this section only blew out of proportion, the “suspension and taking over” part without letting their followers know under what conditions and how.

For the record, “church” is not specifically mentioned in that law. The same law is applicable to mosques, Muslim leaders, and other religious organisations who have not raised any dust. How come it is only Christian leaders and Pastors who have risen against the law? Also, the bill did not come from the executive arm. The attempt to amend it started in 2004. Twice in the life of the 8th assembly, President Buhari declined assent to it. So, it could not have been targeted at any religion, not to mention churches.

Advertisement

Having followed the discussions on it keenly what I have found interesting so far is that most of the people who responded to the critics of the amendment are also Christians and pastors, including some who are senior lawyers (SAN). Their responses are what I usually forwarded to those who asked me questions about the issue all along.

READ ALSO: The North Is On Fire!

Surprisingly, only religious matters bring out such energy in Nigerians. There are other parts of that amendment which affect businesses that need to be challenged, but most people are less concerned. When it comes to religion, Nigerians become “holier than the Pope”. We “pretend” to know more and are more religious than the people who brought the religions to us. One such example is this case.

Similar laws are available in UK, USA, Canada and other similar countries that Christianity came from. The churches, their activities and their leaders are regulated by the governments of these countries. And all of them obey. When our pastors also go abroad, they obey the same laws diligently. Any breach is met with serious consequences. I do not want to start mentioning specific cases in UK which happened to some of our prominent Nigerian pastors. Some cannot even enter UK again. And heaven did not fall. Why won’t they obey similar laws in Nigeria?

Advertisement

Let me reproduce that section here as written in the amendment, as many who have been criticising it have not even seen or read it. They were just following the bandwagon or my “pastor says” syndrome.

“SUSPENSION OF TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM MANAGERS, ETC

Section 839:

1) The Commission may by order suspend the trustees of an association and appoint an interim manager or managers to manage the affairs of an association where it reasonably believes that —

Advertisement

(a) there is or has been any misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the association;

(b) it is necessary or desirable for the purpose of —

(i) protecting the property of the association,

(ii) securing a proper application for the property of the association towards achieving the objects of the association, the purposes of the association of that property or of the property coming to the association,

Advertisement

(iii) public interest; or

(c) the affairs of the association are being run fraudulently.

(2) The trustees shall be suspended by an order of Court upon the petition of the Commission or members consisting one-fifth of the association and the petitioners shall present all reasonable evidence or such evidence as requested by the Court in respect of the petition.

(3) Upon the hearing of the petition and the appointment of the interim manager, the Court, with the assistance of the Commission, may make provision with respect to the functions to be performed by the interim manager or managers appointed by the order –

Advertisement

(a) the powers and duties of the interim manager or managers which may include the powers and duties of the trustees of the association concerned; and

(b) any power or duty specified under paragraph (a) to be exercisable or discharged by the interim manager or managers to the exclusion of the trustees.

(4) The functions shall be performed by the interim manager or managers under the supervision of the Commission.

(5) The reference in subsection (1) to misconduct or mismanagement extends to the employment for —

Advertisement

(a) the remuneration or reward of persons acting in the affairs of the association, or

(b) other administrative purposes, of sums which are excessive in relation to the property which is or is likely to be applied or applicable for the purposes of the association.

(6) A court of competent jurisdiction may, upon the petition of the Commission or members of the association —

(a) order or suspend any person, officer, agent or employee of the association from office or employment, provided that such suspension does not exceed 12 months from the date of the order or suspension;

Advertisement

(b) by order appoint such number of additional trustees as it considers necessary for the proper administration of the association;

(c) by order —

(i) vest any property held by or in trust for the association in the official custodian, who shall be a person so designated by the court from time to time;

(ii) require the persons in whom any such property is vested to transfer it to the official custodian who will be an individual as the court may, from time to time designate, or

Advertisement

(iii) appoint any person to transfer any such property to the official custodian;

(d) order any person who holds any property on behalf of the association, or of any trustee for it, not to part with the property without the approval of the Court;

(e) order any debtor of the association not to make any payment in or towards the discharge of the debtor’s liability directly to the association but to make such payment into an interest yielding account held by the Commission for the benefit of the association;

(f) by order, restrict (regardless of anything in the trusts of the association) the transactions which may be entered into, or the nature or amount of the payments which may be made, in the administration of the association without the approval of the court; or

Advertisement

(g) by order appoint an interim manager to act as receiver and manager in respect of the property and affairs of the association.

(7) Where, at any time after the Commission has made an enquiry into the affairs of the association, it is satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (1), it may suspend or remove —

(a) any trustee who has been responsible for or privy to the misconduct or mismanagement or whose conduct contributed to or facilitated it; or

(b) by order of the Court, establish a scheme for the administration of the association.

Advertisement

(8) The court may by order replace a trustee removed under subsection (7).

(9) A person who contravenes an order under subsection (6) (d), (e) and (f) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to fine as the Court deems fit or imprisonment for a term of 6 months or to both.

(10) The Commission may make regulations in respect of —

(a) the functions, powers and remuneration of the interim manager and the manner in which the interim manager shall make reports to the Commission; and

Advertisement

(b) making reports to the Commission, and such other things as may be necessary for the effective administration of the association during the period of its interim administration.

(11) The Commission shall only exercise its power under this section in respect of any association with the approval of the Minister.”

END.

From the above, which part of these, in good conscience, can anyone point as being obnoxious?

Advertisement

Some of the arguments put up by the critics include that the church is not a business that the government can control. Yes. And that is not what the law is about. Churches and other religious organisations registered with CAC as “not-for-profit”, guided by rules and regulations. Flouting such rules should have consequences just as obtainable abroad.

Churches are not subjected to taxation before and even in the new laws. But government expects “transparency and accountability” in their administration and financial management in the public interest. This should not be a problem for anyone who has nothing to hide.

If churches begin to engage in businesses and are making profits, that part of the church ventures are expected to be treated like other businesses and they should pay tax. Have they been doing that at all or diligently? How many churches can open up their books for scrutiny?

Another argument is that churches are not secular. So a secular government cannot regulate them or appoint managers for them. If government has powers to register churches, and the people (worshippers) are citizens and residents of the country, it is the responsibility of the government to protect them. Churches are “public” properties of the people; they are not supposed to be privately owned by individuals. Except of course, it is no longer established for God’s sake.

Advertisement

There are insinuations that a government which is inefficient, corrupt and have shown incompetence in managing the affairs of the people should not compare itself with churches which are efficiently managed. I agree with this. And this particular concern about bad governance has been the focus of numerous articles I have written.

However, that does not preclude the responsibility of government to oversee any entity within its space, after all, the money that the churches have are contributed by the citizens and not the personal money of the pastors. And how can an entity fail when there is constant inflow of funds on daily and or weekly basis? With such “free revenues” coming in the name of offerings, tithes, first fruits, special donations, etc., any organisation or business will continue to survive all harsh conditions and will be seen and “assumed” to be efficiently run.

In businesses, there are products or services whose productions cost money. These must be sold at profit for the businesses to remain afloat. What products or services bring in the money in the case of churches? What do they cost to “produce”? What do people pay for? What are the revenues used for? Where is the money?

It is ironic that while Nigeria is the poorest country in the world, with over 100 million people in abject poverty, according to Forbes 2020, four of the top ten richest pastors in the world and six of the top ten richest pastors in Africa, are from the same Nigeria. By the way, the richest pastor in the world and in Africa is a Nigerian in Nigeria. Who are their followers? The very same poor people, how come? Let everyone’s conscience be their judge.

Advertisement

Also, some critics posited that people are free to spend their money as they wished and if they give it to the pastors, what is government’s business with that? Well, this is just like how everyone owns their life but it is an offence to take it by oneself (suicide). Government has responsibility on that. Also, it is government’s business to monitor incomes and expenditures of the people, and can ask them how they spend it when necessary, especially as it relates to what they pay as taxes. If they can donate generously to churches, they must have paid generously in taxes as well. But Nigeria is a lawless state. It is only here that people spend money lavishly without care about what government will do.

When I listened to different complaints about that law, I thought it was another “draconian” act of government. On studying that section, I found out that everything that could happen during implementation will still be subjected to court process, giving fair hearing to all parties involved. That is fair enough.

Like the Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo said at the just concluded NBA Annual Conference, there are laid down procedures to ventilate disagreement with any law and he advised the Christian leaders to explore these options. He is a very Senior Pastor as well, apart from being a professor of law and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). That is my own opinion too, if they believe they have justifiable reasons for the laws to be reversed, repealed or amended. They should present their case to the National Assembly or challenge it in court.

In all, it is high time Nigerians weaned themselves of religious dogmatism. “My people perish because of lack of knowledge”. The various religions in themselves are not the problem in Nigeria and Africa but the way their adherents practice them. We should take a cue from the countries where the religions came from. The truth is, it is “religious entrepreneurship” that we mostly have in this country.

Advertisement

People hide under religions and use the name of God to “extort” others. They live in opulence while majority of their congregants live in penury. They exploit the ignorance and naivity of “innocent” people who merely want to worship their God sincerely. Many religious leaders are not different from those “crooked” politicians we all condemned all the time. Anyway, many of them are “hands-in-gloves” with the politicians actually. That’s unfortunate.

So, whoever has any reservation about CAMA 2020 should follow due process in addressing them.

May God continue to guide and protect us.

God Bless Nigeria.

Advertisement

Lateef Adewole is a political analyst and social commentator can be reached by email lateefadewole23@gmail.com or via WhatsApp +2348020989095 and @lateef_adewole on Twitter

Advertisement
1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2015 - 2024 ChronicleNG

Discover more from Chronicle.ng

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading