Tomi Vincent can readily be described as the pastors’ lawyer. He is the legal adviser of the Lagos Chapter of the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria. Beyond that, he is the Managing Partner of Ivory Solicitors Maryland, Lagos and a Notary Public of the Supreme Court of Nigeria with several legal victories in his kitty both as a Barrister and Solicitor. He is an expert in the Laws of Incorporated Trustees, Business Entities’, Legal Compliance and Risk Management.
An alumnus of Obafemi Awolowo University Ife where he did his first degree in law, Vincent also holds a Masters of Law Degree from the University of Lagos and then an Advanced Diploma in Commercial Law and Practice; (Lagos). He holds in addition to that a Certificate in Media Enterprise from School of Media & Communication of Pan Atlantic University, Victoria Island, Lagos.
He is an Associate Member of the Nigeria Institute of Management, the Chartered Institute of Taxation, an alumnus of Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Daystar Leadership Academy. He has attended many professional and management courses both locally and abroad.
He teaches Law & Ethics at the prestigious School of Media & Communication (SMC) Pan Atlantic University, Victoria Island, Lagos. He is also respectively a member of Faculty of Daystar Leadership Academy (DLA) and Church Management Consult (CMC).
In this interview with Gbenga Osinaike, Vincent provides further insight into the issues surrounding the Company and Allied Matters Act which is currently generating so much heat in the country.
When the Company and Allied Matter Act (CAMA 2020) was signed to law, what was your immediate reaction?
I was not surprised because I knew all along that the law was coming. So there was no element of surprise in the law. Don’t forget the genesis of the law could be traced to 2004 during the government of President Olusegun Obasanjo. It was again brought up during President Musa Yar’dua’s tenure and then during President Goodluck Jonathan. The 7th and 8th assembly also brought it up. So we knew all along that it was coming. I have had cause to intimate many church leaders about the law repeatedly and I had been warning those who cared to listen to me in many private and public fora about the impending paradigm shift which such law will possibly introduce. So, it’s not a law that just happened on us.
So what will be your immediate advice to church leaders concerning the law?
My immediate advice is that they should see the reality of the law vis-à-vis the Nigerian society and that the law in question is not targeted at the church because in the first place Nigeria is constitutionally a secular state. It means that there is no law that can pander to the interests of a particular segment of our society.
So laws cannot be made at the federal level separately for a particular religion since laws are by default meant to be on a neutral level in a secular state. Our leaders need to know there is nothing like victimization in this law.
Unfortunately, we are good at making an uproar and raising dust saying we are being victimised. My advice to those against the law is that if they want to contest the law they should go ahead. But they must realize that at the end of the day, it won’t make any difference. We need to wake up to the fact that the paradigm of Pentecostal and Charismatic church administration has shifted. They will have to come back to the reality of the need to re-structure their operational systems and be more accountable as statutorily prescribed. They must know that there has to be proper structure and accountability. Paul Kigame in Rwanda is a Christian and he set up laws that many Pastors in Nigeria will consider anti-Church or borne out of Islamisation agenda if the president was a Moslem. My worry is that, are we going to wait for when a Timothy becomes the president of Nigeria to pander to our own peculiar interest in a secular state ? (Tough call I must say); Or when such a president does what he has to do like President Kigame in Rwanda is doing are we then to say he is being used of the devil?
You are saying in essence that it is time we consider our ways and do things in a way that is transparent?
I think church leaders should see the law as a wake-up call. It is a neutral law. It is not about the so-called Buhari Islamization agenda. The bill that became CAMA 2020 was initiated during the regime of Obasanjo a Christian. That bill was even more draconian than what came out eventually and signed by Buhari into law.
But CAN is saying that it objected to some provisions of the law during the public hearing but that some of the clauses it objected to were sneaked into the law. How will you react to this?
I don’t really know if CAN did its due diligence in this matter. But I know that when the NGO bill came up some people raised eyebrow, put videos out, petitions were signed and several other things are done. There were some objections to the NGO bill. But that bill was not the same thing with the CAMA bill. Maybe it was the NGO bill they kicked against and not CAMA bill
The gamut of CAMA and Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) the regulatory body for CAMA is under the Federal Ministry of trade. This CAMA has been in the pipeline since 2004. CAC had the draft of this amendment prominently shown on their website for almost 3-4 years with proper markings of the intended amendments.
So what is the benefit of getting registered as a charity?
CAMA provides the regulatory framework for any endeavour that requires legal formalisation to run. You can start trading in front of your house and no law can stop you from doing your trade. But the moment you want to establish a Limited Liability Company, there are rules you have to comply with. In complying with those rules you can’t say you have been deprived of your human rights to do business. The part F of CAMA 2020 does not take away your fundamental human rights to associate. You can have a fellowship group and hold your meetings. Universities have fellowships and nobody stops them. But the moment you want to formalize what you have there are rules of engagement that must be followed
Registration puts formality in the business we do. But you and I know that there are some women doing trade and selling stuff who make more money from their businesses than some so-called limited liability companies. I have always told church leaders that there is no law that says churches must register. But if they have to register their trustees they should know the limits of the law and understand the gamut of requirements for their operations and not display undue ignorance.
If a church has registered already can it deregister?
It might be tough. It means the church wants to wind down. In Europe, there are laws about winding down. Actually charities can wind down but the property of the charity can’t be shared amongst members or leaders. The charity winding down has to look for a similar organisation which it can pour its property into.
But I suppose some people went to the public hearing on behalf of the PFN before CAMA became law?
I would not know if the PFN was represented at the public hearing. That perhaps could have been done at the national level of the PFN. I am just the legal adviser of the Lagos Chapter of PFN. But like I said earlier before we began this interview, I am not talking on behalf of the PFN both at the Lagos and National level. What is here are my personal views as a lawyer who was raised in the church and had practised law in close relationships with many leaders of faith locally and abroad for close to 30 years. I have also written many books, granted many interviews, written many articles, advised, given consultations to church leaders and advanced warnings about the imminent danger if we do not change our mindset about church administration and legal compliance. But who listened? About 10 years ago a Church leader even described me as a lawyer from the pit of hell for daring to suggest that such a law as CAMA 2020 would come someday. It was just a matter of time. Now the day is here.
The point I am making all along is that CAMA 2020 was not secret at all. Some church representatives could have raised issues at the public hearing. They would have been allowed to chip in what they wanted at the public hearing.
But it is noteworthy at this juncture that the integrity of legislation is in its neutrality so that it can address all issues objectively.
Those who drafted the law have a sacred duty of ensuring that whatever comes out finally does not pander to the yearnings of a segment of the society unduly without being holistic. Therefore views aired at the public hearing are not binding on those who will make the final draft of the law. The views are to be accommodated just so that a broader perspective of the law is looked at to help in the overall interest of those who will be affected by the law and not merely sectional interests. It’s like a doctor attending to a patient. He will hear the patient out, but he is not completely bound by what the patient says in making his professional decisions. He has to do what is proper in administering treatment for the good of the patient. That is what the process of making law is about.
For the benefit of the layman, what are the areas of the law that is causing the present uproar?
The CAMA 2020 is a repeat of the 1990 law and I doubt if 90 per cent of church leaders have read through the 1990 law despite being a 30-year-old law not to mention the amended 2020 version. The main issue in the CAMA 2020, which people are objecting to is the right of the CAC to suspend the trusteeship of an organization if there are infractions as listed in section 839 of the Law and also that the CAC has the power to appoint interim trustees to supervise the affairs of the charity.
The hullabaloo we are having now is because our leaders don’t understand the concept of trusteeship. If they do, they will understand that never is trusteeship equivalent to headship or ownership. It is merely a stewardship role. A thankless one for that matter. And under that principle, no trustee is allowed to draw funds from the Charity or ministry’s purse or resources. What do I mean? If for instance, I give my phone to somebody to keep for me, he is expected to keep the phone so that whenever I need to use it I will meet it in good order. He is not expected to make use of the phone for private use or misuse the phone or damage it. The phone is kept in trust with him. He is merely a trustee.
Due to ignorance among a lot of Christian leaders, they get involved in trusteeship and also draw funds from the organization. They put their wives and children and also put themselves in the trusteeship. But a trustee has a duty of accountability. The owner of the phone like I stated earlier wants to come back and see that his phone is not misused.
Does this also apply to business organisations?
The company is different. As a director of a company, you can draw a salary. Directorship means you are in the management. But Part F of the CAMA has to do with anything involving or relating to not-for-profit pursuits which religion falls under. It is not targeted at a particular religion. But we found out that many trustees are also the founders and the CEOs of their organisations. They find it difficult to dissociate themselves from the organisation.
So are you saying the Church should not be overly worried about this law?
I am not against the church going to court but I am not very sure there will be a different outcome at the end of the day. Church leaders should start cultivating the habit of being accountable so that CAMA 2020 which to me remains a neutral law will not catch up with or work against any ministry
Some people believe it is not proper to compare the Nigeria with the UK and the US, because in those countries their government support charities, but here the government does not. The argument is that you can’t control what you don’t support. How will you react to this?
One of the basic ungirding concepts of law is that once an appropriate authority in a territory has properly made a law, it is not open to sentiments or comparison. Nigeria is sovereignty and can make her own laws independently or by borrowing from other jurisdictions but once the law is properly adopted in Nigeria you can’t keep living the fantasy of your opinion about how the law should be or not. The next line of action is compliance or to go to the court to contest the law. In the US and UK and Canada, the laws are more stringent regardless of what looks like underlining palliative. Yet nobody runs foul of it without dire consequences. If such laws are used here directly I doubt how many ministry or ministers will still be standing.
But do you think charities should pursue that line of action of getting palliatives from the government?
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. If we are finding it difficult to comply with trusteeship accountability as yet what moral right do we have to justify such demand explicitly?
Don’t forget that charitable organisations like ministries are not taxable entities. That by itself is a huge palliative. Just imagine if ministries are taxed and the huge amount of fund that will be moved out of the ministries.
1 comment