A lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong, has prayed the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal to dismiss an appeal filed by the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) challenging a lower court’s judgement that nullified some sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020.

Mr Ekpenyong, a constitutional lawyer and human rights crusader from the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP, told the appellate court in his brief of argument dated March 27 but filed March 28.

Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had, on April 18, 2023, nullified some sections of CAMA, 2020, which were considered to infringe on fundamental human rights, following a suit filed by Mr Ekpenyong.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1076/2020, the lawyer sued the National Assembly, CAC, the attorney general of the federation, and the minister of justice as the first and third defendants, respectively.

In the originating summons dated and filed on August 31, 2020, the lawyer prayed 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 thoughts, conscience and religion, freedom of association and peaceful assembly and right to access to the court.

Mr Ekpenyong asked the court to determine whether these rights had been infringed on as guaranteed under sections 38, 40 as well as 4 (8), 6 (6) (b), 36 (1) and Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Delivering the judgment, Mr Omotosho agreed with Mr 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 thoughts, conscience and religion.

The judge, who held that the lawyer had locus standi to institute the suit, struck down sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848 and section 851 of CAMA 2020, declaring them null and void, having been inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the CAC, in its notice of appeal dated May 25, 2023, and filed June 9, 2023, by Jibrin Okutepa, sued Ekpenyong and AGF as first and second respondents, respectively.

The commission gave five grounds for allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment delivered by the trial court.

One of the grounds was that the judge erred in law when he entertained Mr Ekpenyong’s claim under the fundamental rights action, even though it was apparent from the claim filed that he lacked the locus standi to have instituted the action.

In the brief of argument with appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/373/2023, dated and filed December 12, 2023, the CAC wants the appellate court to determine “whether from the totality of 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 other things.

The commission, therefore, submitted that the trial judge was wrong to have assumed jurisdiction, heard and determined the first respondent’s case and then granted all the reliefs in the originating summons.

“We urge your Lordships to uphold this appeal,” it said.

But Mr Ekpenyong, in his brief argument, gave four issues for determination.

These include whether the wide powers granted to the appellant (CAC), an agency of the federal government under sections 839, 842-848 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 first respondent’s fundamental human rights.

Others are whether the combined provisions of sections 839, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, and 851 of CAMA, which grants the appellant too much power over religious associations and other incorporated trustees and empowers the appellant to act based on its whims to interfere in their management, are reasonably justified in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy and whether in light of the provision of sections 4 (8), 6 (6) (b), 36 (1) and 251 (1) (e) of the Nigerian Constitution, section 851 of the CAMA, 2020 which gives the appellant powers to oust and usurp the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, is unconstitutional.

The lawyer also wants to know whether religious associations and other incorporated trustees, through which the first respondent and other Nigerians exercise their fundamental human rights enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution, must be overly burdened with too many restrictions and laws to fetter their liberty.

In his argument, Mr Ekpenyong submitted that freedom of thought, conscience, religion, freedom of association and peaceful assembly constituted one of the pillars of a democratic society.

He contended that sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution provided freedom for him to exercise his thoughts, conscience, and religion either alone or in association with those who share his faith and beliefs.

“The first respondent belongs and is a member of the Catholic faith and exercises his constitutional right to associate and practice his religion and faith by participating in the traditions, practices, doctrines and teachings under the Catholic Archdiocese of Abuja registered with the appellant as an association with Reg. Number 6797 since May 26, 1992,” he said.

He said his religious association is led by distinguished Catholics who are also the trustees of the association.

The lawyer, therefore, said that 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 even to manage the accounts of the association, is provocative, draconian and barbaric.

According to him, it is also an affront to Nigeria’s Constitution, which granted the freedoms to the first respondent and other persons in Nigeria in the first place.

He argued that the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and peaceful assembly and association under section 45 of the constitution cannot 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 is 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, the second respondent, has yet to file his brief argument.

A date has yet to be fixed for the hearing.

It would be recalled that on March 21, 2023, Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court had equally restrained the CAC from suspending or appointing trustees of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and the churches.

Mr Ekwo, in that judgment in a suit filed by the Registered Trustees of CAN, held that the provisions of sections 17 (1), 839 (1) and (7) (a), 842 (1) and (2), 851 and 854 of CAMA, 2020 and Regulations 28, 29 and 30 of the Companies Regulations (CR), 2021 were not applicable to CAN, the churches and other religious body.

(NAN)