Civil Society is the hero of democracy in Nigeria, but twice, between 2017 and 2022, the National Assembly attempted to emasculate them through an obnoxious NGO Bill. Will the 10th National Assembly attempt to complete what the 8th and 9th assemblies started?
“If the government decides to control its opposition, then that government is not intending to be accountable. Whoever opposes them, whoever points out the need for accountability will become vulnerable to be deregistered”- Abiodun Baiyewu
Abiodun Baiyewu, “We are already heavily regulated.”
During the 2025 Democracy Day celebration, President Bola Tinubu honoured 42 Civil Society activists with various national honours for their roles in the return to democracy, which has endured for 26 years since 1999 despite serious turbulence. That gesture suggests that Tinubu, a beneficiary of Civil Society’s robust engagement against successive military dictatorships, may accommodate alternative voices during his tenure.
However, there are whispers in some silos in the National Assembly that the “NGO Bill” may be reintroduced in the 10th Assembly to check “excesses” of civil societies. The rumours may also be a subtle threat strategy to keep them on the leash with fear of what may become if they ‘misbehave’.
The Civil Society was seen as an irritant by Buhari’s regime, and overt and covert attempts were made to whittle down their influence. Two dangerous attempts were made under the Buhari regime to clip the wings of civil society through the National Assembly. The first was in June 2016, just one year into Buhari’s first tenure, when Umar Buba Jibril introduced the NGO Bill in the House of Representatives to regulate civil society.
In 2022, with his second term on the last lap and no electoral burden, the Buhari government again tried its luck at the NGO Bill. This time, it was reintroduced in the House of Representatives by Sada Soli from Buhari’s Katsina State. It was greeted by widespread public indignation, and the sponsors quietly abandoned it at the committee stage when it appeared it would affect the ruling party in the looming 2023 election.
Why was there such public opprobrium about the NGO Bill?
Titled Non-Governmental Organisation Regulatory Commission of Nigeria (Establishment) Bill 2016, “NGO BILL” for short, it provided for the establishment of the Non-Governmental Organisations Regulatory Commission for the supervision, coordination and monitoring of Non-Governmental Organisations, Civil Society Organisations in Nigeria. The draconian Bill sought to enlarge the government’s powers to regulate and monitor the funding and operation of NGOs and CSOs.
The Bill has eight parts, 58 clauses and 12 obnoxious provisions. The most controversial include provision for the establishment of the Non-Governmental Organisations Regulatory Commission of Nigeria “to facilitate and coordinate the work of all national and international non-governmental organisations, maintaining a register for Non-Profit Organisations, NPOs; receiving annual reports of NPOs, and advising the government on the activities of NPOs.”
It requires every NPO to be registered at a fee with the Commission, renewable every two years. “Nonrenewal will lead to termination of operation and the deletion of the NPO from the register.” The Commission may also refuse registration of an applicant if it is satisfied that its proposed activities or procedures are not in “the national interest” or on the recommendation of the Nigerian National Council of Voluntary Agencies (a body to be established under the NGO Bill). Similarly, the Commission may also cancel or suspend a certificate issued under the Bill.
Sections 25(c) and 29 provide that funds pledged by donors must be disclosed before commencement of the implementation of the project, including the identity of the donors, the mode of disbursement and the conditions attached to the funding by the donor.
In addition, the assets owned by NPOs through purchase or acquisition with donor funds are the property of the people of Nigeria on discontinuance of operations and shall be surrendered to the government as trustee for the people of Nigeria.
It further provides for the establishment of the Nigerian National Council of Voluntary Agencies (The “Council”), which shall be a self-regulatory agency for NPOs in Nigeria and shall publish codes of conduct for its members.
Three provisions proved very controversial: Every NGO shall be registered with the Commission; The registration shall be renewable every two years; The Commission can refuse registration (or renewal) if it considers the proposed activities of the NGO are against “national interest.”
History of NGO Bills
Since the APC took over power on May 29, 2015, legislators in the Senate and House of Representatives have tried passing five desperate bills to regulate civil society in Nigeria.
The Non-Governmental Organisations Regulation and Coordination Bill, 2015 (SB 111) was introduced on October 20, 2015, followed by the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) Regulatory Commission Bill, 2016 (HB 585). This passed second reading at the House of Representatives on July 14, 2016. The public hearing was conducted on December 13, 2017, but the committee report was never presented on the floor for adoption due to the upsurge of public protests against it.
The Civil Society Commission of Nigeria Bill, 2016 (HB705), was introduced into the House of Representatives on June 15, 2016. Nothing more was heard of it.
The Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (HB410) was introduced into the House of Representatives on March 2, 2016, to provide an effective and comprehensive legal and institutional framework for the prevention, prohibition, detection, prosecution and punishment of money laundering and related offences. It sets out guidelines to strengthen civil society’s accountability and transparency and address stereotypes of NGOs being used as conduits for money laundering. It further provides protection for whistleblowers, sets limits for cash transactions, and establishes money laundering control measures.
The Lobbying Regulation Bill, 2016 (SB 258) was introduced in the Senate on June 15, 2016, to establish lobbying as a profession in Nigeria and regulate it, encourage public participation, transparency and accountability in the lawmaking process. Lobbyists would be registered by the Office of the Clerk of the National Assembly, with lobbying certificates renewable every year. Lobbyists will file annual returns and reports on their activities. The Bill’s definition of lobbying could potentially include the activities of NGOs. If so, the sector will face an additional layer of registration and reporting, a procedural challenge that may negatively impact the work of smaller organisations. The Bill may also prevent NGOs from conducting advocacy due to the costs associated with registering as lobbyists.
Among all these, the Bill introduced by Sada Soli was seen as the most obnoxious by the CSOs, and they fought it vehemently to the end of the 9th National Assembly. The Committee report never made it to the floor of the House for the third reading.
The Pros and Cons of the Bill
A former speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, defended the bill, “Everyone should understand that the principal objective of the NGO Regulation Bill is to inject transparency, accountability and prevent the subversion of national security from both within and without. No one can, or indeed should, gag the operations of NGOs in Nigeria, but just as they aspire for this freedom, it must be stated that freedom does not come without responsibility, as there is no such thing as freedom to be irresponsible.”
However, Shehu Sani, former senator and human rights activist, was unequivocal about the nature of the bill. “The bill on NGOs will reinforce those with tyrannical tendencies and further stifle rights to freedom of speech and assembly. I’ll oppose it.”
Chidi Odinkalu, SAN and former chairman of the Human Rights Commission, affirms the deleterious consequences of the bill. “First, the bill will governmentalize NGOs in Nigeria. Secondly, it will suffocate NGOs with exponential bureaucratisation at a time when official government policy is to ease transaction costs for small entities. Thirdly, filled with a cocktail of whim and caprice, the bill is a boon to official corruption. Fourthly, it will militarise the civic space and make it impossible for anyone who harbours views different from those of the government to organise with legal protection around those views. Fifthly, the bill interferes with constitutionally protected rights to freedoms of expression, association and assembly in a profoundly partisan and impermissible manner.”
Chidi Odinkalu, “The Bill will suffocate NGOs.”
Buba Jibril, sponsor of the Bill in the 8th Assembly, defends his conviction. “The NGOs Bill, therefore, is primarily to set up a commission to regulate their activities and provide a platform for robust relationships between them and the government for the interest of Nigerians. The NGOs Bill is not new or peculiar to Nigeria. It exists in many countries, particularly in the ECOWAS sub-region and all over Africa and other continents. In Europe, Israel passed theirs last year. Kenya has had a similar law since 1990. Nigeria is not and should not be a banana republic where anything goes.”
Transparency International reinforced its opposition to the Bill, describing it as a “dangerous and oppressive bill reintroduced by Sada Soli to violate Nigerians’ human rights and suppress civil society in the country.”
They are “concerned that rather than passing laws that would guarantee and ensure the social and economic rights of the people, Nigerian lawmakers are pushing to take away human rights, contrary to the Nigerian Constitution 1999. The bill poses a direct and serious threat to human rights and would exacerbate restriction of civic space, the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association as well as media freedom in Nigeria.”
Femi Falana, SAN and human rights activist, explains the implications of the bill. “This is perhaps the worst piece of legislation in Nigeria’s history. Under the bill, any civil society group advocating for human rights, basic freedoms and good governance can be shut down and criminalised. The bill is passed, will ultimately have a disastrous impact on Nigerian citizens’ democratic participation in furthering the development of their own country.
“The bill allows government authorities to de-register local and international associations and NGOs if they consider them not to be working in line with ‘national interest.’ The government can similarly deny registration on the vague grounds that the purpose and goal of the associations or NGOs are inconsistent with the programmes of the government. Associations and NGOs operating without registration in Nigeria will face criminal liability.
“It falls significantly short of international human rights norms governing the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, in particular Section 40 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which Nigeria is a state party. Should the bill be passed into law, I will vigorously challenge it in court on the grounds of its unconstitutionality and incompatibility with Nigeria’s international and regional human rights obligations and commitments.”
However, Kayode Ajulo, SAN and human rights activist, thinks there are merits in passing the bill. “The establishment of a regulatory body will ensure that NGOs are driven by passion and not by financial inducement, which has been the major reason many Nigerians have now become emergency NGO founders. Today in Nigeria, we have Shylock businessmen, traffickers, and dubious individuals whose sole aim is to exploit the public, masquerading as owners of NGOs and labelling themselves as activists, thereby using this medium to confuse, mislead and defraud unsuspecting members of the public. This ugly trend must be checked, and that is why I agree with this bill, which seeks to separate the wheat from the chaff.”
Kayode Ajulo, “The State can play a fundamental role in helping NGOs and CBOs play their roles more effectively.”
He argues that “it is imperative to state that the Non-Governmental Organisations play an increasingly important role in development cooperation. They can bridge the gap between the government and the community. Community-based organisations are essential in organising poor people, taking collective action, fighting for their rights, and representing the interests of their members in dialogue with NGOs and the government. NGOs, on the other hand, are better at facilitating the supply of inputs into the management process, mediating between people and the wider political party, networking, information dissemination and policy reform.”
He strongly believes that “by creating an enabling framework of laws, economic and political conditions, the State can play a fundamental role in helping NGOs and CBOs to play their roles more effectively and as a result increase access to infrastructure services for the urban poor. Partnerships between all groups should be achieved without ignoring each other’s strengths, but make use of each other’s comparative advantage.”
Likewise, Idris Wase, then deputy Speaker, defended the bill. “It is good that we have regulations, a kind of code of conduct that should guide their existence. I believe this is what the bill is talking about. It is the collective resolve of the House that we need to regulate the activities of NGOs, not to say that we are eliminating but to regulate them. I believe that when it comes to consideration, it won’t just go to the committee of the whole. It will go to a public hearing.”
Be that as it may, uncertainty still lingers. By an amendment to the law, bills do not expire any longer at the end of one assembly; they can be relisted and continued by the next assembly. This potential threat appears to be subtly keeping a once vibrant CSO community on the leash. Their voice is now muted, lame and impotent. In the reality of genuine threats to democracy by judicial rascality and disenfranchisement of the people through institutionalised electoral fraud, the NGOs appear to have lost their voice.
Are Some NGOs Security Risks?
The sponsors and supporters of more control over the CSOs cite the security angle. They alleged that some NGOs constitute threats to the security of the country and should be fettered.
‘Operation Lafiya Dole’ Theatre Command in Maiduguri, Borno State, strongly alleged that the army had ‘credible intelligence’ that an NGO, Action Against Hunger, an international humanitarian organisation operating in North-east Nigeria, supplied food and medication to Boko Haram insurgents.
Consequently, the army blacklisted Action Against Hunger for allegedly ‘aiding and abetting’ Boko Haram terrorists.
In the 9th NA.SS, lawmakers were talking about national security and terrorism. They argued that there were ways some individuals who establish NGOs get illicit funds to fund illicit activities. At that time, the EFCC was trying to track the cash flow of NGOs. However, SCUML was introduced between 2015 and 2019, and it removed that reason.
Oloriegbe argues dispassionately, “People also think about national security from another perspective, some people from an indirect way, some foreign organisations and agencies use the face of NGOs to fund individuals to engage in activities that are inimical to national interest.”
He cited an example, “I won’t mention the country, but I know of a case where an individual was arrested by the DSS. He was being funded by a country in Asia using an Islamic organisation he was running, but he was using it to collect information to attack Israel. The face was that of an NGO, a religious organisation that was trying to do humanitarian work. These are the kinds of things that make people feel a new law is necessary, but the current regulatory environment, in my belief, has taken care of that.”
Henshaw says the suspicion of security can be jointly addressed. “If it’s something that affects national security, let all the stakeholders sit down and talk it over and arrive at a way forward. Then we know the activities that create problems for national security and how we can address them. We can agree on new proposals to be added to the existing legislation.”
He feels strongly that this cooperation can be mutually beneficial. “We also need protection. At Northeast, many of our people are being kidnapped. Let’s not under the guise of national security, stifle Civil Society. Under Goal 17 Sustainable Development Goals, partnership is desirable. Government and CS must come together; government cannot do everything. The CS mobilises resources to help vulnerable communities. The government cannot do everything. If they shrink the space, then the government will have to go it alone.”
Udekong says it is possible for NGOs to pose a security risk. “That wouldn’t be a surprise because it’s an open affair. The Constitution allows anyone to set up an NGO. Because of that, there will be people whose intentions are genuine for the growth of the society, and there will be others pretending to be setting it up for the good of the society, but with another ulterior motive. So, one will not be surprised that there may be such situations. That’s something for the regulators to deal with, the unit in charge of money laundering and terrorism financing. They will have a story to tell if they have specific case studies in that area.”
NGOs are like any other human organisation, argues Oloriegbe; There might be a few whose intent and actions may not only be inimical to national security but may be personal in terms of being biased. Those few ones are the source of the suspicion. The majority of NGOs do their jobs very well, but that doesn’t preclude that there are some who may not be toeing the line. It’s the regulatory or security organisation that will step up the implementation to fish out those bad eggs and deal with them. But you can’t say because there are bad eggs in the basket, you throw away all the eggs! What you have to do is search for the bad eggs and remove them. The good eggs are still useful.”
“We don’t need any new laws.”
Amnesty International argued in a memorandum submitted on 12 December, 2017 to the House of Representatives Committee on CSOs and Development Partners on Bill HB585 that the NGO Bill “threatens freedoms in Nigeria,” and “directly infringes on human rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and various international treaties ratified and acceded to by Nigeria, including the rights to freedom of association and expression.”
Ibrahim Oloriegbe, then chairman of, Senate Committee on Civil Society and Development Partners in the 9th Senate, confirmed there were attempts to further regulate the civil society. “While I was in the Senate, there were two bills that came up – one to regulate social media and one to regulate NGOs. I’m not in the school of thought that said we needed additional bill, neither when I was in the National Assembly did I propose a bill for regulation though I was the chairman of the committee. We don’t need any new laws; there are existing laws, there are existing institutions; those institutions should step up the implementations of the regulations.”
Senator Ibrahim Oloriegbe, “We concluded the job to reestablish the Civil Society Liaison Office.”
He feels the reason for the attempt to regulate the Civil Society is the current ineffectiveness of the current regulatory environment – the CAC, EFCC, and the Police.”
“My personal opinion is that we don’t need a new law. We need to strengthen implementation. This, he argues, is because “most of the NGOs are registered. If you are not registered you are already running foul of the law. If you are registered, your management and funding are being tracked by the law. All the activities you are doing are tracked by DSS, EFCC, Police and others. They should be able to act on the information they collect. So in my view, we don’t need another law. We only need a better implementation of existing laws by various organizations and institutions.”
Abiodun Baiyewu, executive director Global Rights, concurs with Oloriegbe that the sector does not need more laws. “CAMA, sets very stringent rules on how CS should be run, laws on employment, transparency. There is a myriad of laws that govern the CS in Nigeria and ensure that the activities of CS are in line with extant laws.”
She argues, “We are already heavily regulated. Make no mistake about that. Way more laws regulating NGOs here than in many countries. This is coming as a reaction to the attempts to stifle CS. In US the CS is self-regulated. There’s a regulation board in UK; most of EU are self-regulated. That is welcome. We should pursue this because it is the way most advanced countries have gone. It is a way we can be partners in progress. The State states its concern and the CS states their own concern. Then we build consensus around what needs to happen.”
On attempts by 8th and 9th National Assemblies to further regulate the CS, she said they had ulterior motives. “There was mischief behind those provisions – to re-register the NGOs and renewal of license every two years. What should enhance those laws is what we should be looking at. If government decides to control its own opposition, then that government is not intending to be accountable. And that was what it was all about. Whoever opposes them, whoever points out the need for accountability will become vulnerable to be deregistered.”
On the excesses of NGOs, she insists there may have been a few bad eggs but the regulation and stipulation demanded by donors show that NGOs do not get away with a lot of things. “There’s attempt by government to say that those trying to hold them accountable are not accountable themselves. And this is not true. We comply as demanded by government. We file our audit twice a year to government. We file our operations and actions. So it’s very difficult for an NGO to be unaccountable in the myriad of laws that exist by which we must abide.”
Ken Henshaw, executive director, We The People, prefers a multistakeholder approach to regulation. “The sector started national conversation on self-regulation. Ethically, this is how we want it to be. So, when you look at the gamut of self-regulatory laws. We really don’t need too many laws because 95 percent of these non-profits are self-funding; support from family and friends, from the general public.”
Against this background, he argues, “There are enough regulations already. We have enough regulations to deal with all their concerns. Whatever it is, today we have laws that cover all that. Some of the old laws can be updated to cover new concerns, if necessary. Additional regulations will stifle the sector. It means that as support is not coming from government, it becomes difficult to access outside funding. Non-profits are providing shelter, schools, medications, supporting young people and many others.”
Problems with existing legislations
The CAMA 2020 is seen as one of the laws that was passed too hurriedly and contains a lot of loopholes. The CAMA law was worked on primarily by the executive, as a result, there are provisions with stringent regulations identified as inimical to NGOs. For instance, companies make returns once in a year but NGOs are required to make returns twice in one year. This is considered unfair because of the cost of making returns every six months.
Similarly, the law says that CAC can dissolve the board of any NGO and appoint interim managers. However, it did not stipulate for how long, and it didn’t put a limitation to the powers of the interim managers. In other words, the interim managers can dispose of the assets of an NGO or a CSO. And the interim manager can also dissolve the whole organisation. In addition, there’s a provision that gives CAC the power to merge one NGO with another without their consent because they are similar. These provisions are considered very stringent and could be used by the government to deal with NGOs critical of their activities.
Oloriegbe recommends that the 10th National Assembly revisit these draconian provisions. He started the process in 2022 in the 9th Assembly by sponsoring a bill, which passed through first and second readings in the Senate. The report was written, but it was not presented. He alleged that CAC itself was the one behind it not being presented.
“They brought up the issue that there was a court case brought by the Christian Association of Nigeria as an NGO that was affected by that provision. Fortunately, before the expiration of our term, the court gave judgment in April 2023 against CAC, but under the claim that they were appealing, the report was still not presented. What happened was that the Senate referred it to the Committee on Trade and Investment, which was the lead committee; while my committee was a subordinate committee because CAC’s main oversight committee was Trade and Investment. And because the Committee and CAC were in alignment, the chairman didn’t feel the report should be presented.”
He expects the 10th Assembly to revisit the bill because the NGOs, CSOs and CBOs are critical for democracy to thrive. “They are critical for development to really happen because the government cannot do everything. Government is not everywhere. At community levels, we need NGOs because the government doesn’t have the reach and the capacity. We have so many challenges, and there are NGOs focusing on each. They are essential and necessary for development. They are necessary for democracy to grow.”
He argues it is wrong for a government to ban an NGO under the guise that they are engaged in suspicious activities. “The government should take the NGO to court with evidence; without evidence, that is dictatorial, not democratic. The actions were wrong. Two, the NGOs didn’t go to court for intervention, which would have been the appropriate thing. If it were challenged in court, the court would have ruled that the governors didn’t have the power to ban them from operation. It should not be tolerated. I also expected NGOs across the country to put their voice against that.”
The National Assembly Civil Society Liaison Office
The National Assembly was found to be open to enable self-regulation for CSOs. To ensure close coordination with CSOs, the Senate of the 9th National Assembly set up a committee to establish the National Assembly Civil Society Liaison Office.
“We concluded the job to reestablish the civil society liaison office,” explains Oloriegbe. “One of the actions I took was to develop the implementation guidelines, and I wrote to the Senate President on our resolutions and what was required to be done. I think the Senate President endorsed it to the clerk of the National Assembly. My counterpart in the House of Representatives also wrote to the then Speaker. The Committee met. We carried out what we were supposed to do, and we produced a report. To be able to establish the National Assembly Civil Society Liaison Office. The operational guideline was developed, the policy was developed, the staff agreed and so on. The letter was written and submitted.”
According to the proposed guidelines, the National Assembly would provide the space and staff as their own contribution to the funding of the office. In terms of recruitment and materials, it was agreed that NGOs should generate resources to support the office. A steering committee was supposed to be set up, but the 9th Assembly ended before any further action.
“You know we have a new leadership now; it’ll be for the clerk who is the institutional memory keeper to follow up with the new committee and the new leadership. I think NGOs should also be able to do that, like an advocacy,” advises Oloriegbe.
NGOs are becoming more professional and more accountable.
Baiyewu admonishes the lawmakers to be very mindful of the strategic roles NGOs play in society, so they do not throw away the baby with the bath water. “The civil Society is the backbone of the Nigerian Society – pre-colonial, colonial and even today. They led us from military rule to democracy. They have a very pivotal place. They have led our civic space in our quest for self-determination over the years. Civil society has been the bridge and the catalyst for democracy in Nigeria. Civil society has been vibrant, and you need to see it in all the sectors where the civil society showed up for Nigeria, whether as media, NGOs in education, health, accountability in governance and democracy. Nigeria’s Civil Society has been vibrant and acknowledged locally and internationally.”
She says there has been “a huge evolution” in how the CS engages the government in Nigeria over human rights, from being very confrontational and oppositional during colonial and military rules, but over time, “they have become more professional, more transparent, more democratic in the way they run their affairs.”
The NGOs have been forced by the intricacies of their operating environment to standardize over the years. “As we hold the government accountable, so are we becoming more accountable too. For example, we have become more transparent in the way our spending is done, how leadership is provided and a lot of the subjects have become more technical so we ensure that we become experts in the areas and things in which we profess. And those things necessitate that the sector become more professional. Even donors want a certain standard of us because they don’t want to be swindled.”
On attempts by the 8th and 9th National Assembly to regulate the CS, she said they had ulterior motives. “There was mischief behind those provisions – to re-register the NGOs and renewal of license every two years. What should enhance those laws is what we should be looking at. If government decides to control its own opposition, then that government is not intending to be accountable. And that was what it was all about. Whoever opposes them, whoever points out the need for accountability will become vulnerable to be deregistered.”
On the excesses of NGOs, she insists there may have been a few bad eggs but the regulation and stipulation demanded by donors show that NGOs do not get away with a lot of things. “There’s attempt by government to say that those trying to hold them accountable are not accountable themselves. And this is not true. We comply as demanded by government. We file our audit twice a year to government. We file our operations and actions. So it’s very difficult for an NGO to be unaccountable in the myriad of laws that exist by which we must abide.”
She advises the 10thNational Assembly to consider the NGOs as partners in progress, not enemies to be dealt with. “They should listen to them as people who represent constituencies across the country. It will be very inimical and damaging to their reputation if there’s an attempt to foist a similar bill on Nigerians again. Civil Society is not just organised CS; it is all of us, our collective voices, even if channelled through professional voices such as NGOs.”
“I have nothing to fear from NGOs if I’m Nigeria’s president. I think there must be a voice that will tell you the truth at all times. Because they represent different constituencies of society and interest groups, I will listen to them. We will not always agree; CS and government don’t always agree across the world. But that’s what makes democracy strong.”
The aim of Mr President should be “to build a strong, vibrant country where people are able to determine their needs to leave a culture of democracy.”
Idem Udekong, British Council Component 2 Manager for EU Funded Projects in Nigeria, says civil society organisations in Nigeria “continue to grow, making sure that the voices of people are heard in policy processes and service delivery.”
This rapid growth means that there may be a few bad eggs in the mix, “but the vast majority are in it for the good of other people,” he argues.
He says regulations are dynamic in nature. “Let someone not just sit somewhere and make laws to regulate the CS without understanding the problems that exist. People will just think that there is a gap. Whatever it is, whether a new law or an amendment is proposed, let it be enabling to the operations of CSOs.”
Udekong has fears about establishing a regulatory commission. “They may use the commission to unnecessarily crack down on the CSOs. But I don’t think the CSOs are saying, don’t monitor the sector and root out bad eggs and bad practices. At times, it’s like witch-hunting.”
He sees no justification for CSOs to renew their licenses every two years. He argues that this is subject to abuse. “It poses an unnecessary burden on the NGOs. It is also subject to abuse. The official renewal fee may be N5, 000 but someone in the office can demand more. That is why I personally will not favour the renewal of the registration certificates of the CSOs. They should use the mechanism of annual return to know if the organisation is still active.”
In the United Kingdom, where the root of Nigeria’s laws was inherited through colonialism, the practice is markedly different. There is the Company law and there is the Charity law. The company law is there for companies and is administered by the Companies House, the equivalent of the CAC in Nigeria. This is specifically about incorporated companies. Why it concerns non-profit organisations is that it is under CAMA in Nigeria. So, if you want the benefits of companies limited by guarantee, you will register with the Companies House. Then, when you have met a certain threshold, you now register with the Charity Commission to be regulated by the Charity Commission.
“If you don’t want the option of company, you can go straight to the Charity Commission and be registered as a trust. They have another one called un-incorporated association. There’s another one, Charity incorporated organisations, incorporated directly under the Charity Law by the Charity Commission.”
The difference between the Company House and the Charity Commission is that the Charity Commission’s regulation goes beyond submitting an annual return as a company. They monitor your activities to make sure you are still operating within the guidelines, so that the way the organisation is managed it is not open to unnecessary risks by the trustees and directors to make sure there’s no fraud.
He advises Nigerian NGOs to be responsible. “The very first thing is existing for the reason you were set up. And that reason, I believe, is for the public benefit. Your primary interest may be your members; serve them well. It could be you were set up to serve the general public, make sure what you are for the general public, for the public good, not for a few individuals. That’s the legitimacy. And operate your organisation transparently and accountably. Report to the necessary authority and provide the necessary documentation. Be generally a law-abiding citizen. Obey the laws of the land and your own internal rules as well.”
Should the NASS insist on further regulation, Udoekong urges them to follow the standard procedure. “They should adopt a multi-stakeholder approach. Don’t just say, ‘We are the lawmakers,’ and you come out with something. Do the analysis with other stakeholders, CSOs, NGOs, and regulators. Let everyone come to the table, look at the issues, look at the gaps and agree on how to fix such gaps, vis-à-vis what exists and come up with a new law. Let it be driven by both the CS and the lawmakers, not regulators.”
Stakeholders recommend that enough consultation should a new legislation be necessary. Public hearings are one of the ways of consulting the public, but given recent experiences in Nigeria, this may not be enough. For instance, it is feared to be subject to manipulation, and not many people can come to Abuja for the public hearing in the present economy. To reach a wider audience, the draft of the proposed bill could be put on the internet for a month or two for people to make their inputs, as done in other climes, not just a one- or two-hour public hearing.
Oyebisi Oluseyi, executive director of NNNGO, says NGOs are not against regulation per se. “We want regulations, but regulations that guide us. We have over 50 regulations at the moment that guide different aspects of our work. There’s the CAMA 2020, the company establishment law. There’s also SCML. You can’t open an account without an SCML activation. It’s under the EFCC. And after that, the FIRS, when you get your exemption from tax, to PAYE, so you can function as a non-profit. Then there’s the Reporting Council, a code of corporate governance for non-profit that has been developed.”
He argues that the politics about further regulation of NGOs is driven by both ignorance of existing laws and fear of NGOs by the government and the lawmakers.
“Sometimes they are not aware of the existence of those laws; where they are aware, their interpretation and understanding may be a bit narrow. Sometimes it’s just for them to gag civil society organisations. Civil Society Organisations are centred on issues of accountability. Like the issue of elections, they could gag you so that the CSOs won’t be able to hold politicians accountable.”
Funmi Akinyele, executive director of BFI, says the proposed NGO Bill was in bad faith. “Our concern with the NGO Bill is that it has an ulterior motive. The two failed attempts were a clear-cut design to stifle civil society organisations and their capacity to hold the government accountable. Regulation is good, but what we see in Nigeria is not regulation to make the Civil society perform better, but an attempt to make it disappear completely.”
She argues that the lawmakers appear to have political reasons to go against the NGOs. “There’s no opposition party in the real sense of it in Nigeria. So, the NGOs are seen by the government as opposition. It’s the NGOs that raise issues about bad governance. They are the only voice of opposition in the country. It’s an attempt to silence the civil society altogether.”
Lawmakers argue that NGOs are too many and need to be trimmed, but Akinyele insists that there may be a few challenges, but no proliferation because NGOs are now specialising in specific areas. “We actually need more so that the civic space can express itself more and hold the government more accountable. They monitor constituency projects, MDAs, budgets, anywhere you go, there are NGOs monitoring governance, that’s what they are angry about.”
Henshaw admits there would be ‘excesses’ but argues that “for every excess, you have available laws to hold people accountable to. If an NGO or a church steals money, there are available laws to hold them accountable. So why do you want to make special laws for NGOs?”
The proposed NGO Bill provides that NGOs should disclose their operational details, including the location of activities, source of funding and duration of interventions. Henshaw thinks this is a bobby trap.
“Why do members of the National Assembly want to know the activities we are holding and why we are holding them? That’s totally wrong! If I write a proposal to investigate 20 allowances to members of the National Assembly or conduct a forensic audit of the allowances members of the National Assembly are getting, what will happen? That Bill will stifle the civil society.”
The Fire Next Time
Against this turmoil, what will the 10th National Assembly do with the controversial NGO Bill? Will political exigencies overwhelm human rights, international best practice and public opinion, or will the Bill be allowed, as it should, to die quietly in the archives of inconclusive legislations?
