The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) on Sunday vowed to file a fresh suit challenging the implementation of certain provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 in the country.

Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday dismissed a suit filed by CAN to challenge the CAMA 2020 signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari in August last year.

The law stipulates that religious bodies and charity organisations will be regulated by the Registrar-General of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and a minister.

It also provides that the CAC may, by order, suspend the trustees of an association or a religious body and appoint an interim manager or managers to coordinate its affairs in the event of misconduct or mismanagement or in public interest.

CAN had in March filed a suit with the number FHC/ABJ/CS/244/2021 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on the regulation.

In the ruling, the court held that the proper name of the Plaintiff was “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.”

However, CAN’s General Secretary, Joseph Daramola, said in a statement the Christian body would file a fresh case on the matter.

He said: “Our lawyers are currently preparing to institute a fresh suit using the proper name of the Plaintiff (CAN) as it is on the Certificate of Incorporation. This is the truth of the matter now. What happened in the court was just a temporary setback and by the grace of God, we have 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.

Whether the provision of Section 854 of the CAMA is inconsistent with Section 39 of the CFRN which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.”

“Part of the reliefs we are seeking include 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.

“An order striking down Section 17 (2) (a) & (d) of the CAMA for being impracticable and unknown to law.”