Some parts of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020, which were seen to violate the basic human rights of Nigerian citizens, have been declared invalid by the Federal High Court (FHC) in Abuja.
Emmanuel Ekpenyong, the plaintiff, has locus standi to bring the lawsuit on the issue, according to Justice James Omotosho, who in a ruling threw down the portions.
According to the media, Ekpenyong, a lawyer with an office in Abuja, sued the National Assembly, the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), and the Attorney-General for the Federation (AGF) as the first through third defendants in a lawsuit with the filing number FHC/ABJ/CS/1076/2020.
The attorney requested that the court assess whether he had locus standi to bring the process in the original summons, which was dated and filed on August 31, 2020.
Whether the rights of the plaintiff to free speech, the exercise of religion, and association as guaranteed by Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are violated by the provisions of Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, and 851.
Ekpenyong sought the court to assess whether such provisions violated his right to assemble peacefully and associate with others as guaranteed by Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution.
Additionally, he asked the court to rule on whether the terms of Section 851 of CAMA, 2020’s Administrative Proceeding Committee requirements were in conflict with those of Section (6)(6)(b), Sections 36(1), and Section 251(1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution.
He questioned the court’s authority to impose obligatory injunctive reliefs against the defendants.
The attorney consequently pleaded with the court to throw out the offending passages because they violated his basic human rights.
The CAC’s attorney, Olasoji Olowolafe, submitted a rebuttal affidavit on January 20, 2021, in which the commission referred to the lawsuit as “an abuse of the judicial process.”
The commission claims that the plaintiff will not benefit utilitarily from the lawsuit since it is only an academic hypothetical.
The CAC requested that the case be dismissed on the grounds that it was not supported by any reliable evidence.
The National Assembly also argued that the litigation was defective in its preliminary objection, claiming that the plaintiff lacked locus standi and that they had not received pre-action notice.
In addition, the AGF maintained that the plaintiff lacked jurisdiction to initiate the case and that the lawsuit lacked a valid cause of action.
To refute their claims, Ekpenyong, among other things, filed a reply on legal matters.
When delivering the ruling, Justice Omotosho said that anybody might pursue basic human rights issues under Article 3(e) of the Preamble to the basic Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules for his or her personal interests, those of another person, or even for the general good.
The verdict, which was announced on Tuesday, was seen by news reporters on Friday.
The judge claims that under the new human rights laws, a court cannot reject a case for a lack of locus standi.
He concluded that the plaintiff in the case had the authority to file the lawsuit.
According to Justice Omotosho, Ekpenyong’s right to free speech was violated by the CAC’s use of the authority provided to it by Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, and 848 of the CAMA 2020 to govern and manage incorporated trustees in Nigeria.
Additionally, he claimed that the parts violated the freedoms of religion and conscience protected by Section 38 of the constitution as well as the right of peaceful assembly and association protected by Section 40 of the constitution, rendering them unconstitutional.
In addition, he claimed that the Administrative Proceedings Committee’s provisions in Section 851 of the new CAMA violated Sections 6(6)(b) and 36(1) of the Constitution by denying the plaintiff access to the courts and usurping the authority of the Federal High Court under Section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution.
As a result, the court ruled that Sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, and Section 851 of the CAMA 2020 were invalid because they were in conflict with the constitution.
However, the court ruled that the lawsuit was inadmissible against the legislative body since Ekpenyong did not provide the National Assembly with pre-action notice in accordance with Section 21 of the Legislative Houses Power and Privileges Act.
The CAC had been restrained by Justice Inyang Ekwo of a sister court from suspending or selecting trustees of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the churches, according to news reports dated March 21.
In that ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Registered Trustees of CAN, Justice Inyang Ekwo determined that CAN, churches, and other religious organisations were exempt from the provisions of Sections 17 (1), 839 (1) and (7) (a), 842 (1) and (2), 851 and 854 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020, and Regulations 28, 29 and 30 of the Companies Regulations (CR), 2021.
