Court Restores NYCN Status, Orders CAC To Reinstate Sukubo-Led Trusteeship

…Nullifies Interim Committee, Declares NYCN Takeover Unlawful

ABUJA – A Federal High Court in Abuja has invalidated the regulatory intervention that altered the leadership structure of the National Youth Council of Nigeria (NYCN), directing the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to immediately restore the council’s registration and return control of its Board of Trustees to its previously recognised leadership under Ambassador Sukubo Sara-Igbe Sukubo.

The court also struck down the provisional administrative arrangement introduced to manage the affairs of the council, holding that the setup lacked legal backing and could not stand in the face of ongoing judicial proceedings.

Justice Binta Nyako ruled that the CAC exceeded its statutory authority when it moved beyond regulatory supervision to determine leadership questions within the NYCN and subsequently installed a provisional management structure to run its affairs.

According to the court, such actions amounted to an overreach that interfered with matters already before a competent judicial forum.

The judge therefore ordered that all parties revert to the status quo that existed before the regulatory intervention, pending the final determination of related disputes at the appellate level.

The dispute arose after the CAC withdrew the registration certificate of the National Youth Council of Nigeria, originally issued on October 28, 2020, on October 6, 2025.

Following the withdrawal, the CAC, in collaboration with the Ministry of Youth Development, established a nine-member Interim Management Committee on October 7, 2025, headed by Buhari Shehu, to oversee the affairs of the council.

The move immediately triggered legal challenge from Ambassador Sukubo Sara-Igbe Sukubo, who serves as NYCN President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees, alongside another claimant.

They instituted Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2142/2025 at the Federal High Court, Abuja, seeking judicial clarification on the legality of the administrative actions and the extent of regulatory authority over incorporated trustees under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020.

Central to their case was whether provisions of CAMA empowering the CAC to suspend trustees, appoint interim administrators, or interfere in internal governance structures were consistent with constitutional protections under Sections 39, 40, and 251, particularly regarding freedom of association and jurisdictional limits.

They also questioned whether previous judicial pronouncements that invalidated Sections 839 and 851 of CAMA rendered reliance on those provisions unlawful, and whether administrative actions taken during pending litigation were legally sustainable.

In her judgment, Justice Nyako emphasised that while regulatory agencies such as the CAC possess oversight responsibilities over incorporated trustees, such powers are not unlimited and must not be exercised in a manner that resolves active disputes already before the courts.

The court found that the actions taken by the defendants went beyond regulatory supervision and effectively amounted to a takeover of the organisation’s leadership structure while litigation was ongoing.

Justice Nyako warned that such intervention had the potential to undermine judicial authority and distort the subject matter of pending proceedings.

She stated, “So, having disposed of all the objections, I will now look at the substantive application. Having considered the processes filed by the parties, I am of the view that the central issue is not whether the first and second defendants possess regulatory powers over incorporated trustees. The real question is whether those powers extend to the wholesale displacement of existing leadership structures.

“In the case of the first claimant, and in the particular circumstances of this case, the affidavit evidence before this court reveals that disputes relating to the trusteeship, leadership structure, and administration of the first claimant have been the subject of multiple litigations before courts of competent jurisdiction. It is trite that when the determination of issues is already before a court, an administrative body must exercise caution and restraint so as not to prejudice the proceedings.

“The powers conferred on the Corporate Affairs Commission under the Companies and Allied Matters Act are regulatory in nature. The Corporate Affairs Commission undoubtedly possesses regulatory powers over incorporated trustees.

“These powers, however, cannot be exercised in a manner that effectively determines a live dispute already awaiting judicial determination.

“The Commission may investigate. It may supervise compliance with statutory requirements. It may make inquiries into the affairs of an association. What it cannot do is assume the role of the court by effectively deciding who should govern the association while the issue remains the subject of pending litigation.

“The evidence before this court shows that the defendants went beyond investigation. They purportedly withdrew the certificate of the first claimant and proceeded to constitute an Interim Management Committee to assume control of the organization.

“However, whatever nomenclature is used, the practical consequence of that decision was to displace the existing leadership structure and install another authority in its place. In my view, such actions altered the status quo in a dispute that was already before the courts and had the tendency of rendering pending proceedings nugatory.”

The judge further stressed that administrative agencies cannot pre-empt judicial outcomes or indirectly achieve what is already pending before a court.

She added: “The law does not permit a party, directly or indirectly, to achieve administratively what remains unresolved judicially. This would amount to an abuse of court process.

“However, while I decline to make general pronouncements declaring Sections 839 and 851 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act unconstitutional, the actions taken pursuant to those provisions, in the particular facts of this case, were unlawful and cannot stand.

“The court is satisfied that the intervention complained of exceeded what was reasonably necessary to achieve regulatory oversight and encroached into matters properly reserved for judicial determination. Parties are thus advised to await the outcome of the appeal.

“I consequently hold that while the first and second defendants possess statutory oversight powers over incorporated trustees, the withdrawal of recognition and imposition of an Interim Management Committee in the circumstances of this case were premature and cannot be sustained.

“Parties are hereby directed to maintain the position existing before the (CAC NYCN deregistration and Ministry of Youth Development constitution of Interim Management) intervention complained of pending determination and decision of the dispute currently before the Court of Appeal. And move back to the status quo before this case, taking into consideration the pending appeal. So that is the decision of the court.”

Flowing from its findings, the court set aside the withdrawal of the NYCN registration and ordered the CAC to immediately reinstate the council’s legal status.

It further directed that Ambassador Sukubo Sara-Igbe Sukubo and other duly recognised trustees be reinstated as the legitimate leadership of the Board of Trustees of the National Youth Council of Nigeria.

The court also nullified the Interim Management Committee constituted by the CAC and the Ministry of Youth Development, effectively dissolving its authority over the council.

With the ruling, the governance structure of the NYCN has been restored to its position prior to the intervention, pending the outcome of related appellate proceedings currently before the Court of Appeal.

Source: https://independent.ng/court-restores-nycn-status-orders-cac-to-reinstate-sukubo-led-trusteeship/