Amichi Crisis: Citizens Reject Anambra Govt’s Power to Suspend Town Union, Impose Caretaker

By Amichi Concerned Citizens

Supremacy of the Federal Acts over State Legislation has been invoked by Concerned citizens of Amichi community in Nnewi South Local Government Area of Anambra State who insist that the rule of law must prevail in the ongoing leadership crisis in the community.

They declared that no state government directive can override the legal framework governing a town union registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

The group, which comprises legal luminaries and other concerned citizens, made the position known on Sunday, arguing that under Nigerian constitutional and administrative law, the Anambra State Government lacks the legal authority to suspend the elected executive of a CAC-registered town union or unilaterally impose a caretaker committee over it.

According to them, where a town union is registered as an Incorporated Trustee under Part F of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, its internal administration is governed by the federal law, its registered constitution and decisions of its General Assembly.

They maintained that the state government, through the Ministry of Local Government, Chieftaincy and Community Affairs, cannot use administrative directives to supersede the provisions of CAMA or the constitution of a legally incorporated town union.

The Concerned Citizens argued that regulation of Incorporated Trustees is a matter governed by federal legislation, with the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Federal High Court playing central statutory roles in matters concerning their legal status, governance and dissolution.

They further cited established judicial principles that the constitution of an incorporated association constitutes a binding agreement among its members and that elected officers can only be removed in accordance with the procedures contained in the registered constitution or through lawful judicial intervention.

The group specifically challenged what it described as the practice of state authorities dissolving elected town union executives and replacing them with caretaker or ad-hoc committees.

It described such action, where undertaken without authority from the town union’s General Assembly or the relevant legal process, as ultra vires, insisting that an administrative directive cannot lawfully displace a constitutionally and statutorily recognised leadership structure.

According to the group, the General Assembly of a town union remains the highest authority in determining its internal leadership, subject to the provisions of its registered constitution and applicable law.

They argued that the state government cannot substitute its own preference for the decision of the General Assembly by simply issuing a directive suspending elected officers or installing a caretaker committee.

They, however, acknowledged that the state has legitimate responsibilities concerning public order, security and community relations, adding that where a community leadership dispute threatens public peace, government and security agencies may intervene to maintain law and order.

But such intervention, they argued, does not automatically confer on the state the power to rewrite the internal leadership structure of a CAC-registered organisation.

They also acknowledged that the state government may choose not to recognise a particular executive for purposes of government grants, programmes or administrative dealings.

However, the group insisted that withdrawal of such administrative recognition does not, by itself, extinguish the legal existence of the incorporated town union or invalidate the authority of its elected officers under its registered constitution.

They, therefore, declared that any executive directive by a Commissioner, Special Adviser or Governor purporting to suspend elected officers of a CAC-registered town union or impose a caretaker committee, without the authority of the union’s constitution, General Assembly or a competent court, would be legally vulnerable and liable to be challenged.

The Concerned Citizens maintained that the proper avenues for resolving leadership disputes remain the procedures prescribed by the town union’s constitution and, where necessary, recourse to the courts.

The citizens called on all parties in the Amichi crisis to respect due process, warning that administrative actions taken outside the law could further deepen tension and undermine peace in the community.

They said Amichi does not need a further escalation of the crisis but a resolution anchored on the rule of law, constitutional procedure and respect for the decisions of the community’s legitimate organs.

“Amichi can work through due process and the rule of law,” the group declared, insisting that peace and stability in the community can only be sustained when every party, including government authorities, operates within the limits of its lawful powers.

Legal experts among the Concerned Citizens have said state governments lack the constitutional and statutory powers to dissolve elected executives or impose caretaker committees on town unions and community associations incorporated as trustees under Nigeria’s Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).

The group, who cited constitutional provisions, the CAMA 2020 and judicial precedents, said town unions registered as Incorporated Trustees are voluntary, non-governmental bodies whose affairs are primarily governed by their registered constitutions and applicable provisions of federal law.

They said Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees citizens the right to assemble freely and associate with others, adding that this constitutional protection extends to voluntary community associations, including town unions.

According to them, a town union incorporated under Part F of CAMA 2020, formerly Part C, acquires a legal status that places its regulatory oversight under the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), rather than state governments.

They maintained that state governors, commissioners responsible for local government or town union affairs and other state executive bodies cannot, without specific statutory authority, arbitrarily dissolve an elected town union executive, impose a caretaker committee or cancel or dictate the conduct of elections organised in accordance with the union’s constitution.

The legal experts further referred to Section 839 of CAMA 2020, arguing that any suspension of trustees or intervention in the management of an incorporated trustee must comply with procedures prescribed by the Act.

They said where intervention contemplated under CAMA is required, the appropriate statutory and judicial mechanisms must be followed, rather than being carried out unilaterally by a state government or ministry.

They also argued that the CAC and the Federal High Court have defined roles under the federal legal framework governing incorporated trustees, stressing that state authorities cannot usurp those powers.

They described as legally questionable any caretaker committee imposed by a state government on a registered town union without lawful authority, insisting that the validity of such an arrangement could be challenged before a competent court.

They further said the constitution of a registered town union remains the principal instrument regulating its internal administration, including the selection and tenure of its leadership.

According to them, where members of a town union conduct elections in accordance with their registered constitution, a state government cannot simply set aside the outcome or prescribe a different electoral process without clear statutory authority.

The legal position, they said, is consistent with the broader principle that public authorities must act within the limits of powers expressly conferred on them by law.

They also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General of Ekiti State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors, alongside related authorities on grassroots administration, as supporting the principle that executive authorities cannot arbitrarily dismantle elected administrative structures and replace them with caretaker arrangements.

The group said the principle of constitutionalism requires government at every level to respect the autonomy of bodies established and regulated under existing laws.

They therefore urged state governments to resolve disputes involving town unions through lawful judicial and administrative processes rather than unilateral intervention in the internal affairs of registered community associations.

They maintained that allowing executive authorities to arbitrarily remove elected town union officials or impose caretaker administrations could undermine freedom of association, weaken community self-governance and create unnecessary conflicts at the grassroots.

The legal experts explained that any genuine dispute over the leadership, trusteeship or administration of an incorporated town union should be subjected to the appropriate legal mechanisms under CAMA and the constitution of the affected association.

In January 2024, the Anambra State High Court sitting in Ogidi (presided over by Justice E.I. Ndigwe) delivered a judgment in favor of the elected executive officers of the Nawfia Progressive Union (NPU) against the Anambra State Government.

Regarding ban on Caretaker Committees, Justice Ndigwe issued a perpetual injunction restraining the Anambra State Government from imposing caretaker committees on Nawfia and other local communities across the state.

The court awarded ₦5 million in costs against the Anambra State Government.