SkyDNews Investigations Desk

Nigeria's NGO Bill, HB 3019, is proposing a new federal regulatory structure for non-governmental and civil-society organisations. The proposed law would introduce additional requirements covering NGO registration, project approval, funding disclosure, reporting and regulatory oversight.

 

That raises a fundamental question: what exactly is missing from Nigeria's existing regulatory system, and why does the country need another agency to oversee organisations that are already subject to laws, financial regulations and existing government institutions?

 

Nigeria already has ministries, departments, agencies, commissions, security institutions, tax authorities, financial regulators and the Corporate Affairs Commission.

 

There are laws against money laundering.

 

There are laws against terrorist financing.

 

There are laws governing companies and incorporated trustees.

 

There are tax laws.

 

There are financial reporting requirements.

 

There are banking regulations.

 

There are anti-fraud institutions.

 

There are donor compliance requirements.

 

There are courts.

 

And there is already the Corporate Affairs Commission, whose statutory mandate includes registering and regulating companies, business names and incorporated trustees and maintaining records of them.

Nigeria also has the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering, SCUML, operating under the EFCC framework, with specific registration and compliance requirements for at-risk non-profit organisations, including humanitarian and charitable organisations, religious or faith-based organisations and associations.

 

The Nigeria Revenue Service now operates a national tax-identification framework for registered organisations and other regulated entities.

 

So one question ought to be ringing loudly in the National Assembly:

What exactly is missing?

Why does Nigeria need another federal agency whose proposed mandate would enable it to maintain detailed records of NGOs, coordinate their activities, issue policy guidelines, receive and approve their reports, supervise them, register their projects and become involved in the funding and implementation of those projects?

 

That is not a small administrative question.

 

It is a question about how much control a government should have over citizens who voluntarily organise themselves to serve other citizens.

 

And the National Assembly should answer it before proceeding any further with the proposed Non-Governmental and Civil Society Organisations Agency (Establishment) Bill, 2025 - HB 3019, sponsored by Hon. Sada Soli.

 

Soli is not an obscure figure in the National Assembly. Also referred to in some records as Sada Soli Jibiya, he is a member of the House of Representatives representing the Jibia/Kaita Federal Constituency of Katsina State on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Born on 13 March 1962, he is the Chairman of the House Committee on Water Resources.

 

That position makes the questions surrounding HB 3019 even more pertinent.

 

What specific failure in Nigeria's existing regulatory system has compelled the sponsor to propose another federal agency for the NGO and civil-society sector?

 

What is it that the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), SCUML, tax authorities, the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit, EFCC and other existing regulatory institutions are currently unable to accomplish?

 

Why should organisations already incorporated and operating under existing laws have to submit themselves to another layer of registration, project approval, reporting, monitoring and possible suspension?

 

And perhaps most importantly, what consultations did the sponsor and the National Assembly undertake with the very civil-society organisations that would be subjected to this proposed regulatory architecture?

 

These are not questions of hostility towards Hon. Sada Soli.

 

They are questions of legislative accountability.

 

A law that seeks to regulate an entire sector of independent citizens deserves to be examined not only by the lawmakers proposing it, but also by the people whose freedoms, resources and activities it seeks to regulate.

 

The National Assembly should therefore tell Nigerians plainly: What problem does HB 3019 solve that existing laws and regulatory institutions cannot solve?

 

This is not merely an NGO register

 

Anyone attempting to defend this bill by saying, "It is only about registering NGOs," should first read the bill.

 

The bill proposes an actual Non-Governmental and Civil Society Organisations Agency.

 

Its Board would be chaired by a representative of the Ministry of Interior.

 

Other government representatives would come from Foreign Affairs, Finance, Justice, Labour and the Office of the National Security Adviser.

 

Only five members would come from NGOs and civil-society organisations.

 

The proposed Agency would be empowered to:

• facilitate and coordinate the work of national and international NGOs;

• maintain a register of NGOs operating in Nigeria;

• record their sectors, affiliations and locations of activities;

• advise government on NGO activities;

• review their reports;

• issue policy guidelines for harmonising NGO activities with the National Development Plan;

• receive, discuss and approve regular reports; and

• perform other functions considered necessary by its Board.

That is not a passive registry.

 

That is a supervisory bureaucracy.

 

The bill even requires the Agency to establish and maintain a documentation centre on NGOs and their activities in Nigeria.

 

The proposed Executive Secretary would be appointed by the President and would have a status not below that of a Permanent Secretary.

 

So Nigerians should ask plainly:

Why does Abuja need a documentation centre containing detailed information about what independent civil-society organisations are doing across the country?

Who needs this information?

For what purpose?

Who will have access to it?

What safeguards exist?

And what prevents such information from being used against organisations whose advocacy, research, journalism, human-rights work or community mobilisation becomes politically inconvenient?

The bill does not merely want to know that NGOs exist.

It wants to know where they operate, what they do, who they are affiliated with, what they report and how their projects are conducted.

That is a very different proposition.

The bill makes registration a condition for operating

Clause 23 provides that a certificate of registration is conclusive evidence of an organisation's authority to operate.

 

More disturbing is Clause 23(4).

 

It states that an organisation that is not registered under the proposed law cannot operate in Nigeria or benefit from government facilities available to registered organisations, except that the Minister may make concessions in special emergency circumstances on the advice of the Agency.

 

Read that again.

 

A citizen-led organisation formed to provide education, health relief, agriculture, welfare or other development assistance would not simply be recognised by government.

 

It would be required to obtain the government's regulatory certificate to operate.

 

And failure to comply is not treated as a minor paperwork problem.

 

Clause 34 makes operating an NGO in areas including welfare, health relief, agriculture, education and supply of amenities without registration and certification an offence punishable by a fine of up to ₦500,000, imprisonment for up to 24 months, or both.

 

A person convicted under the proposed law can also be disqualified from holding office in an NGO for 10 years.

 

This is not "coordination."

 

It is a licensing regime.

 

Abuja wants to know the money - and the project behind it

 

This is where the argument becomes even more serious.

Clause 35 deals directly with project formulation and implementation.

 

An organisation whose activities are aimed at improving the economic, social and cultural welfare of a target group is required to:

"fully consult and seek the approval of the Ministry" related to its activities in line with government development objectives.

The organisation must also disclose the donor's pledge before implementation, including:

• the mode of disbursement;

• conditions attached to the funds; and

• where money comes directly from donors or through an overseas office, the transfer must pass through the normal banking system.

Then comes Clause 36.

 

It is devastatingly clear.

 

A project formulated by an organisation for implementation in the country shall be approved by the relevant Ministries and registered with the Agency before implementation.

 

That is the language of the bill itself.

 

So when Nigerians say the bill gives government an approval role over NGO-funded activities, that is not a conspiracy theory.

 

It is written into the proposed legislation.

 

The argument should therefore not be reduced to whether the bill literally says, "You must obtain Abuja's permission before holding a fundraising dinner."

 

That is not the real issue.

The real issue is much larger:

An NGO may raise or receive resources for a project, but the project cannot be implemented under the bill's framework until the relevant Ministry approves it and the proposed Agency registers it.

 

And the bill demands extensive information about the money behind that project.

In an emergency, you still ask permission for the waiver

 

The drafters appear to have anticipated criticism over emergencies.

 

So Clause 36(2) provides that, in an emergency, project registration before sourcing funds may be waived on request by the organisation to the Agency.

 

But notice the wording:

"may be waived on request."

 

It is not an automatic right.

 

The organisation has to ask.

 

And if the waiver is granted, the Agency must, within 21 days of the organisation sourcing the funds, advise the Minister of:

• the amount of money involved; and

• the planned utilisation of the funds.

So even in an emergency, the proposed architecture places the government's regulatory machinery squarely in the funding chain.

The state wants to know:

• How much did you raise?
• What are you going to do with it?
• What project is it for?
• What are the conditions attached to the money?
• Has the relevant Ministry approved it?
• Has the Agency registered it?

 

One can reasonably ask:

At what point does regulation become control?

 

And Abuja wants the project budget broken down

 

Clause 37 requires a project submission to state:

• the type of activity;

• category of target participants;

• estimated number of participants;

• duration;

• total amount required;

• the organisation's contribution;

• community contribution;

• other donations;

• number of personnel;

• personnel costs;

• signatures of community leaders; and

• approval by the relevant Ministry and its recommendation to the Agency.

Why?

If a legitimate NGO is already incorporated, maintains financial records, files its statutory returns, satisfies tax requirements, complies with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist-financing (AML/CFT) requirements, and is accountable to its donors, why should another federal agency sit between that organisation and the community it intends to serve?

 

If an organisation commits fraud, prosecute it.

If it launders money, prosecute it.

If it finances terrorism, prosecute it.

If it steals donor funds, prosecute it.

If it falsifies accounts, prosecute it.

If it abuses participants, prosecute it.

But why create an omnibus bureaucracy that can stand between legitimate organisations and legitimate community projects?

NGO Bill: Nigeria already has enough regulators

 

This is perhaps the biggest question the National Assembly has failed to answer convincingly.

 

Nigeria's nonprofit sector is not operating in a regulatory vacuum.

 

The CAC already registers incorporated trustees and maintains records on them. The Commission itself says its mandate includes incorporation, regulation, supervision and maintaining corporate records.

SCUML already has specific requirements for non-profit organisations considered at risk, including humanitarian/charitable organisations, religious or faith-based organisations and associations.

The AML/CFT framework is already extensive. SCUML lists the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and other regulations among the instruments governing its work.

The tax system has its own registration and compliance mechanisms.

Banks monitor transactions.

Donors audit projects.

International development partners impose their own financial, safeguarding and reporting requirements.

And where criminal conduct is suspected, the EFCC, police and other competent authorities already have powers under existing laws.

There is therefore no credible basis for pretending that Nigeria's NGO sector exists outside the law.

It does not.

It is already regulated.

The question is whether it is being regulated enough - or whether government simply wants another lever of control.

NGO Bill: Even Nigeria's civil society sector has documented this regulatory maze

 

A regulatory-framework study by the Nigeria Network of NGOs documented the multiple layers of legal and administrative obligations affecting civil-society organisations.

The study identified, among other things, CAC requirements, tax administration and National Planning Commission-related arrangements for international NGOs and charitable imports.

That means the problem is not a lawless NGO sector wandering around Nigeria with nobody knowing who it is.

The problem is almost the opposite.

There are already multiple points at which the state can identify, monitor, tax, inspect, investigate or obtain information about nonprofit organisations.

So what exactly is the proposed Agency bringing to the table?

Another register?

Another certificate?

Another reporting requirement?

Another approval process?

Another agency budget?

Another board?

Another Executive Secretary at Permanent Secretary level?

Another bureaucracy that NGOs must satisfy before they can operate?

Nigeria's public sector is already notorious for institutional duplication.

The NGO sector does not need another regulatory layer simply because government has the legislative power to create one.

The bill's Board tells its own story

 

Look carefully at the proposed Board.

The Ministry of Interior.

Foreign Affairs.

Finance.

Justice.

Labour.

National Security Adviser.

Then five representatives of NGOs/CSOs.

That is six government/security interests against five civil-society representatives.

 

And the Board is given power to manage and superintend over the affairs of NGOs and civil-society organisations.

 

This is where the title of the proposed law begins to look misleading.

 

An organisation called Non-Governmental is being placed under a statutory body whose governing structure is predominantly governmental.

 

That deserves an answer from the bill's sponsors.

 

How does a non-governmental sector remain genuinely non-governmental when government controls the principal regulatory architecture governing its operations?

NGO Bill: The President would appoint the Executive Secretary

 

The bill provides that the Executive Secretary of the proposed Agency would be appointed by the President and would have a status not below that of a Permanent Secretary.

 

Again, Nigerians should ask:

If the purpose is merely transparency and accountability, why does the regulator require such a powerful federal bureaucratic structure?

Why should the President appoint the head of an agency overseeing organisations whose constitutional role includes holding government accountable?

 

This is not an insignificant concern.

 

A healthy democracy needs civil society that can question government.

 

It needs organisations that can expose corruption.

 

It needs advocacy groups that can challenge bad laws.

 

It needs humanitarian organisations that can tell government when communities are suffering.

 

It needs churches, mosques, charities, professional bodies and community associations that can organise independently.

 

It needs journalists who can investigate.

 

It needs citizens who can assemble without first asking government whether their cause is sufficiently aligned with a government development plan.

 

A regulator should therefore not become a mechanism for making independent organisations dependent on government approval.

"Harmonising" NGOs with the government's development plan?

 

Clause 8 empowers the proposed Agency to provide policy guidelines to NGOs for "harmonizing their activities with the National Development plan for Nigeria."

 

This phrase should worry anyone who understands the meaning of civil society.

 

An NGO does not exist to become a delivery arm of government policy.

 

It can collaborate with government.

 

It can support government programmes.

 

It can complement government.

 

It can receive public funds.

 

But it can also disagree with government.

 

It can expose the failure of government programmes.

 

It can campaign for a different policy.

 

It can investigate issues the government would rather ignore.

 

It can mobilise communities against harmful government decisions.

 

That is precisely why it is called civil society.

 

If every NGO must "harmonise" its activities with government development plans, what happens to the organisation whose legitimate mission is to expose the failure of those plans?

 

What happens to an organisation campaigning against environmental destruction by a government-approved project?

 

What happens to a human-rights organisation documenting abuses by security agencies?

 

What happens to an advocacy organisation campaigning against a government policy?

 

What happens when an NGO's research contradicts the government's preferred narrative?

 

Does the Agency approve its report?

 

Does the Ministry approve its project?

 

Does the Board approve its activities?

 

That is where this bill becomes dangerous.

 

And then there is the religious question

The bill does contain an exclusion.

Clause 32(2) says its provisions do not apply to, among others, religious worship centres.

That fact must be acknowledged.

 

But the bill then creates a separate section dealing with faith-based NGOs.

 

And that section is revealing.

 

Faith-based NGOs registered under the Agency may be exempted from certain regulatory requirements where they demonstrate that a requirement conflicts with their religious beliefs, values or principles.

 

But they must provide evidence of their continuing religious mission and positive social impact through regular reporting to the Agency.

 

The Agency is also to establish a committee to oversee and monitor compliance with those exemptions.

 

So even the proposed "exemption" comes with government oversight.

 

The state effectively says:

We recognise your religious freedom - but we will establish a committee to monitor your exemption.

 

That is precisely the kind of arrangement Nigerians should scrutinise.

 

The recent Court of Appeal judgment on CAMA could not have arrived at a more significant time.

Court of Appeal has already drawn the constitutional line

 

On 17 September 2026, the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in Corporate Affairs Commission v. Emmanuel Ekpenyong.

 

The court affirmed the nullification of Sections 839 and 842-848 of CAMA 2020.

 

Those provisions had given the CAC extensive powers over incorporated trustees, including powers that could affect the leadership and administration of associations.

 

The Court of Appeal held that the provisions infringed constitutional protections relating to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of association and peaceful assembly under Sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution.

 

The court also rejected the argument that the restrictions were reasonably justifiable under Section 45(1).

 

That is a very important warning.

 

The court did not say government cannot regulate associations.

 

It said government cannot exercise regulatory power in a way that crosses constitutional boundaries.

 

And the court specifically upheld the lower court's position that voluntary associations have autonomy in managing their internal affairs, subject to the law and their own governing instruments.

 

That principle should now be sitting on the desk of every lawmaker examining HB 3019.

Parliament should not create another CAMA problem

 

The irony is difficult to miss.

 

The National Assembly enacted CAMA 2020.

 

Its regulatory provisions were challenged.

 

The Federal High Court struck down the offending provisions.

 

The CAC appealed.

 

And now the Court of Appeal has substantially upheld the constitutional challenge.

 

The lesson should be obvious:

Do not write excessive government powers into legislation and wait for the courts to remove them later.

 

Legislators should learn from the judgment.

 

They should examine HB 3019 against Sections 38 and 40 of the Constitution.

 

They should ask whether the proposed Agency's powers are necessary.

 

They should ask whether they are proportionate.

 

They should ask whether existing regulators already provide the required safeguards.

 

They should ask whether the project approval regime could interfere with freedom of association.

 

And they should ask whether making the continuation of an NGO dependent on a government-issued certificate is compatible with a democratic civil society.

 

There is also a disturbing question of political neutrality

Imagine an NGO that investigates corruption in a federal ministry.

 

Imagine another that documents human-rights abuses by a security agency.

 

Imagine one campaigning against the government's handling of insecurity.

 

Imagine a civil-society organisation challenging a controversial infrastructure project.

 

Imagine an advocacy organisation exposing procurement irregularities.

 

Imagine a humanitarian organisation publicly criticising government for failing displaced persons.

 

Now imagine all of them being required to maintain registration under an agency whose Board includes the Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance and the National Security Adviser.

 

Then imagine that the Agency can suspend or cancel the organisation's certificate where it considers the statutory conditions breached or receives a recommendation from the Office of the National Security Adviser.

 

That is not an accusation that the government will abuse the power.

 

It is an argument that democratic law should not create the opportunity for such abuse without sufficiently strong safeguards.

 

And HB 3019 deserves scrutiny precisely for that reason.

 

Suspension can come through the NSA

Clause 28 is particularly troubling.

 

The Agency may cancel or suspend an NGO's certificate where:

• the organisation violates the conditions attached to its certificate;

• it breaches the proposed Act; or

• the Board receives a recommendation from the National Security Adviser.

The suspension or cancellation takes effect within 14 days of notice.

 

An organisation may appeal to the Minister.

 

But the bill states that the Minister's decision on the appeal is final.

 

There is the problem.

 

The organisation is being regulated by an Agency.

 

The Agency can act on an NSA recommendation.

 

The organisation appeals to a Minister.

 

And the Minister's decision is declared final in the bill.

 

Where, in this structure, is the independent judicial safeguard?

 

Why should the final word belong to a political office-holder rather than an independent court?

 

That question becomes even more significant in light of the Court of Appeal's warning against administrative bodies usurping judicial functions under CAMA.

 

Government should fix government before fixing NGOs

This is where the National Assembly needs to look in the mirror.

 

Nigeria has ministries and agencies that have failed to publish adequate records.

 

Government projects are abandoned.

 

Public procurement is repeatedly questioned.

 

Auditor-General reports continue to raise concerns.

 

Budget implementation remains a perennial subject of controversy.

 

Public institutions owe Nigerians explanations about trillions of naira.

 

Yet government wants to establish an agency whose job includes maintaining a detailed documentation centre on NGOs and their activities.

 

Really?

 

Has government finished documenting and accounting for its own activities?

 

Has Abuja finished answering Nigerians about public expenditure before demanding increasingly granular information from organisations that survive largely on private donations and international grants?

 

Has government solved the problem of ghost workers, abandoned projects, procurement irregularities, corruption and poor public-service delivery?

 

If not, why is the next priority another agency to watch civil society?

 

This is not an argument against accountability.

 

It is an argument for proportionate accountability.

 

Government must be accountable.

 

NGOs must be accountable.

 

Churches must be accountable.

 

Mosques must be accountable.

 

Companies must be accountable.

 

But accountability must not become a euphemism for political control.

The sponsors must answer the duplication question

 

Hon. Sada Soli and supporters of the bill should tell Nigerians plainly:

• What can the proposed NGO Agency do that CAC cannot?

• What can it do that SCUML cannot?

• What can it do that the tax authorities cannot?

• What can it do that the existing AML/CFT framework cannot?

• What can it do that the police, EFCC and courts cannot?

• Why must a legitimate project receive approval from a Ministry and registration from another Agency before implementation?

• Why should an independent NGO be required to align its activities with a government development plan?

• Why should the NSA have a role capable of triggering suspension or cancellation of an NGO certificate?

• Why should a Minister have the final word on an NGO's administrative appeal?

• Why does Nigeria need another expensive federal bureaucracy to maintain records that several existing institutions already collect?

 

These are not hostile questions.

 

They are public-interest questions.

 

And lawmakers owe Nigerians answers.

 

Do not confuse transparency with government ownership

 

Nobody is arguing that NGOs should become unaccountable.

 

In fact, genuine NGOs should welcome scrutiny.

 

A responsible NGO should maintain proper accounts.

 

It should know where its money comes from.

 

It should know where its money goes.

 

It should conduct audits.

 

It should protect participants.

 

It should comply with applicable tax and financial laws.

 

It should prevent fraud.

 

It should guard against money laundering and terrorist financing.

 

It should be transparent with donors.

 

It should be transparent with communities.

 

But none of that requires the government to become the owner of civil society.

 

A free civil society is not a government department.

 

A charity is not a ministry.

 

A church is not a federal agency.

 

A mosque is not a government office.

 

A humanitarian organisation is not an arm of the civil service.

 

And an NGO should not have to obtain political permission before carrying out every legitimate expression of its independent mission.

The National Assembly should withdraw or radically rewrite this bill

 

There is nothing wrong with regulating the nonprofit sector.

 

There is something wrong with creating a regulatory structure so broad that it can become a tool for bureaucratic obstruction, political pressure or administrative control.

 

HB 3019 should therefore not proceed simply because its promoters have attached attractive words such as transparency, accountability, coordination and social development to it.

 

Lawmakers should go beyond the title.

 

Read the clauses.

 

Look at the powers.

 

Look at the approval requirements.

 

Look at the funding provisions.

 

Look at the sanctions.

 

Look at the role of the NSA.

 

Look at the presidential appointment of the Executive Secretary.

 

Look at the composition of the Board.

 

Look at the project approval provisions.

 

Look at the religious exemption provisions.

 

Then ask whether Nigeria really needs this machinery.

 

The choice before Nigeria

 

Nigeria has two possible paths.

 

One is to build a civil society that is transparent, professionally governed, financially accountable and free to criticise government.

 

The other is to build a civil society that must continually look over its shoulder at Abuja before acting.

 

The first strengthens democracy.

 

The second weakens it.

 

The National Assembly must decide which Nigeria it wants.

 

The Court of Appeal has already delivered its warning in the CAMA case:

Government regulatory power has constitutional limits.

 

The NGO Bill should be judged against that principle before it becomes another law that Nigerians have to drag through the courts.

 

Nigeria does not need another bureaucratic gatekeeper standing between citizens and the communities they serve.

 

It needs government to do its own job better.

 

It needs existing regulators to enforce the laws already on the books.

 

It needs stronger transparency.

 

It needs stronger financial accountability.

 

It needs independent courts.

 

It needs a vibrant civil society.

 

And above all, it needs lawmakers who understand that an NGO is called "non-governmental" for a reason.

 

The National Assembly should therefore stop and rethink HB 3019.

Because when government begins asking independent citizens not merely to obey the law but to seek official approval for the projects they design, the money they mobilise and the communities they serve, Nigerians are entitled to ask one simple question:

Who gave Abuja ownership of civil society?

The last question is very important for the NGO Bill and the question of project approval

 

SkyDNews - Unveiling the Truth, Empowering Change.