The principal contention over the proposed NGO/Foreign Aid Bill is not whether organisations should be transparent, but whether transparency should become a licence for federal control. Uwem Essien examines Professor Chidi Odinkalu’s concern on the NGO bill.
CONTEXT
The bill reportedly proposes a Foreign Aid Regulatory Commission with powers to register, inspect, audit, sanction, suspend or shut down organisations receiving foreign grants, donations or technical assistance, alongside public disclosure requirements for partners and activities.
WHY Odinkalu CALLS IT DANGEROUS
Chidi Odinkalu’s description of the proposal as the most dangerous legislation since 1999 is forceful, but it is grounded in the breadth of the powers being contemplated.
He argues that the framework could draw virtually every organised non-state activity—church, mosques, schools, universities, hospitals, humanitarian groups and community associations—into an Abuja-centred approval system.
THE DANGER LIES IN DISCRETION.
A regulator empowered to license, inspect, audit, sanction and close civic bodies can turn legitimate accountability into political control, especially where the law does not impose clear, narrow standards, independent review and due process.
Organisations that investigate corruption, defend victims, provide legal aid or challenge government policy could face administrative harassment through registration, funding approvals or sanctions.
Nigeria already has laws and institutions dealing with incorporation, financial reporting, money laundering and criminal conduct.
Any new regime must therefore prove that it fills a genuine gap rather than duplicate regulation and weaken independent civic action.
WHAT MUST BE DONE?
Citizens, religious leaders, professional bodies, universities, media organisations, humanitarian agencies and civil-society groups should build a broad coalition against excessive regulatory powers.
They should demand publication of the full bill, submit written memoranda, mobilise public education, engage legislators constituency by constituency and insist on judicial safeguards.
At the public hearing, the collective position should be clear: withdraw the bill in its present form.
If lawmakers retain any foreign-aid transparency objective, it must be limited to proportionate financial disclosure, protect confidential beneficiaries and donors, guarantee notice and fair hearing, and make every sanction subject to prompt judicial review.
IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Potentially, yes. Sections 38, 39 and 40 of the Constitution protect religious freedom, expression, peaceful assembly and association; Section 45 permits restrictions only where they are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society for defined public interests.
A law that broadly conditions lawful association, religious fundraising or humanitarian activity on executive permission could fail that necessity-and-proportionality test.
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY’S CHOICE
The National Assembly should halt the bill as drafted.
If it believes regulation is necessary, it should return to the table with affected sectors and produce a narrowly tailored, rights-compliant measure that promotes transparency without converting civic life into an agency of the Federal Government.
This report was first published by The PLENARY
Share this
