Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) said, on Sunday, that its legal team has begun plans to institute fresh legal suit against the Federal Government on the “controversial” Companies Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020.
CAN explained that the reason for fresh legal suit was because Justice Inyang Ekwo, dismissed their earlier legal suit over the failure of the plaintiff (CAN) to comply with the law in the name used in filing the originating summons.
The Court held that the proper name of the plaintiff (CAN) is The Registered Trustees of Christian Association of Nigeria, as stated on the plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation, as against The Incorporated Trustees of Christian Association of Nigeria, and the Court was unable to allow the replacement of the name on the originating process.
CAN General Secretary, Joseph Daramola, in a statement on Sunday, explained that at the sitting, the Court delivered the ruling on the plaintiff’s application for amendment of originating summons.
He said: “In the ruling, Honourable Justice Inyang Ekwo, stated that suing in the wrong name contrary to statutory provision is statutory non-compliance, and is not a mere misnomer to be corrected by the Court, as the court cannot re-write statutory provisions. The suit was accordingly struck out.”
Daramola said what happened in the Court was a temporary set back and by the Grace of God, they would overcome it. “Our prayers are for the unborn generations and nothing will discourage us from pursuing this case to the logical conclusion.
“We want the court to determine whether Section 839, subsections (1), (7) (a) and (10) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), 2020, is inconsistent with Sections 4(8), 6(6)(b) and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which guarantees the plaintiff’s right to freedom of association and the right to seek redress in court.
“Part of the reliefs we are seeking include a declaration that Section 839(1), (7) (a) and (10) of the CAMA are inconsistent with Section 40 of the CFRN and thus unconstitutional, null and void. A declaration that Section 839(1), (7) (a) and (10) of the CAMA are inconsistent with Section 4(8) of the CFRN and thus unconstitutional, null and void.
“A declaration that Section 839(1) and (7) (a) of the CAMA are inconsistent with Section 36(1) of the CFRN and thus unconstitutional, null and void. A declaration that Section 839(1) and (7) (a) of the CAMA has a direct effect on the judicial power of the court under Section 6(6) (b) of the CFRN, and it’s therefore void.
“An order striking down Sections 839(1), (7) (a) & (10), 842(1) and (2), 843, 851 and 854 of the CAMA for being unconstitutional. A declaration that Section 17(2) (a) & (d) of the CAMA demand an impossible and impracticable action; thus, void. Also, an order striking down Section 17 (2) (a) & (d) of the CAMA for being impracticable and unknown to Law.”
He allayed fears of some Christians over the suit, thereby, soliciting the support of Nigerians, irrespective of religion, as they return to court to secure freedom of religion and worship to every Nigerian irrespective of religious, political and ethnic affiliations.