On Profiling of NGOs and Donor Organisations in Kano: X-Raying Controversies and Echoes of Unconstitutional Provisions
By Mohammed Bello
The recent establishment and inauguration of a committee by the Kano State Government to profile NGOs and donor organizations operating within the state, investigate their sources of funds, and potentially close their offices has ignited considerable debate.
I have carefully watched with keen interest, and unfortunately, much of this discussion appears to be fueled by a lack of awareness regarding relevant legal precedents, particularly concerning the constitutional validity of similar actions. It is crucial to understand that poor understanding of the law is no excuse, and all citizens, especially those commenting on matters of public importance, have a responsibility to be informed. This is particularly true in a state governed by a constitution, which serves as the supreme law of the land.
This background aims to shed light on this issue by drawing attention to specific sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 that were previously declared unconstitutional. By comparing these invalidated provisions with the Kano State Government’s recent actions, we can analyze the potential legal challenges to the state’s initiative. This comparative analysis will demonstrate how the state’s actions closely mirror the unconstitutional aspects of the CAMA 2020, thereby raising serious concerns about their legality.
Nonetheless, it is vital that all stakeholders engage in this discussion with a clear understanding of the legal framework and existing jurisprudence to ensure that actions taken by the government are both lawful and respect fundamental rights.
Sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 that were Declared Unconstitutional
Section 839: This section allowed the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to suspend the trustees of an association or religious body and appoint interim managers to coordinate its affairs in cases of misconduct or mismanagement.
Section 842: This section required associations to submit biannual statements of affairs, accounting records, and personal information of trustees.
Section 843: This section gave the CAC the power to direct banks to disclose and transfer standing credit in any dormant account of an association, regardless of any secrecy or non-disclosure agreement.
Section 844: This section mandated associations to keep proper accounting records and prepare annual financial statements.
Section 845: This section required associations to have their financial statements audited by a qualified auditor.
Section 846: This section allowed the CAC to investigate the affairs of an association if it believed there was misconduct or mismanagement.
Section 847: This section gave the CAC the power to call for the production of books and documents from associations.
Section 848: This section allowed the CAC to apply to the court for an order to freeze the bank accounts of an association if it believed there was misconduct or mismanagement.
Comparative Analysis of the Sections of CAMA 2020 Declared Unconstitutional Versus Kano State Government’s Recent Effort To Regulate NGOs
The Kano State government’s actions of profiling NGOs and donor organizations, investigating their funding sources, and even closing offices raise serious concerns in light of the declared unconstitutionality of several sections of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020.
The parallels between the invalidated CAMA provisions and the state government’s actions are striking and suggest potential legal challenges to the state’s approach.
Similar Infringement on Fundamental Rights
The core reason the listed CAMA sections were deemed unconstitutional was their infringement on fundamental human rights, specifically the freedom of assembly and association.
The Kano State government’s actions, particularly the profiling and investigation of funding sources, directly touch upon these same rights. NGOs and donor organizations are associations, and their ability to operate freely, including receiving funding, is intrinsically linked to the freedom of association. Profiling and intrusive investigations can have a chilling effect, discouraging legitimate activities and potentially hindering their operations. The closure of offices is an even more severe restriction on this freedom.
Echoes of Unconstitutional CAC Powers
Several of the invalidated CAMA provisions mirror the actions being undertaken by the Kano State government. Examples included the followings:
Investigation of Affairs (Section 846 CAMA)
The state government’s investigation of NGOs’ funding sources and general operations closely resembles the CAC’s power to investigate under Section 846, which was struck down. The issue here is the potential for arbitrary or politically motivated investigations that could stifle legitimate NGO activities.
Control over Finances (Sections 843 & 848 CAMA)
While the state government may not be directly freezing accounts as per Section 848, the scrutiny of funding and potential closure of offices can have a similar effect, disrupting financial flows and hindering operations. The now-invalidated Section 843, which allowed the CAC to access dormant accounts, highlights the sensitivity surrounding oversight of an association’s finances. The Kano State government’s actions, by investigating funding sources, similarly intrude into the financial affairs of these organizations.
Reporting Requirements (Section 842 & 844 CAMA)
While the state government’s actions might not explicitly involve biannual reporting of the same nature as Section 842, the act of profiling and demanding information about funding sources serves a similar purpose – increased government oversight and potential control over the association’s operations. The now-invalidated Section 844 required associations to submit financial statements. The Kano State government’s investigation of funding sources and demands for information could be seen as a similar attempt to gain insight into the organizations’ finances and operations.
Potential Legal Challenges
Given the precedent set by the unconstitutionality of these CAMA provisions, NGOs and donor organizations in Kano State may have grounds to challenge the state government’s actions in court. They could argue that the state’s actions are similarly infringing on their fundamental rights to freedom of association and that the rationale behind the CAMA ruling applies equally to their situation.
Importance of Due Process and Transparency
The key takeaway is that while governments have a legitimate interest in ensuring accountability and preventing illicit activities, they must do so within the bounds of the law and respect fundamental human rights. The Kano State government’s approach appears to lack the necessary safeguards and transparency, raising concerns about potential abuse of power and undue interference in the activities of legitimate organizations.
It is important to note that this analysis is based on publicly available information about the Kano State government’s actions and the invalidated CAMA provisions.
Mohammed Bello,
Chief Executive Officer,
African Centre for Innovative Research and Development (AFRI-CIRD)
