The Extent in which Rights to Freedom of Association is Exercisable By Amina Mustapha Umar and Qosim Muhibudeen (contributor)


When a person voluntarily joins a peaceful association, he did so with the full knowledge and freewill to adhere to the rules and regulations guiding such association. Therefore, it is not for such a person to pick and choose which aspect of the manual, constitution or guidelines of the association he has voluntarily join that suits him and vice-versa. To wish to so abide only to that which suits him is for him to first disengage from the association. He is bound wholly and entirely to what has been provided by the association’s constitution, guidelines or manual on how its operations are to be conducted. —The Contributor

The law is trite that, in fundamental human rights enforcement, the rights of a person cannot be granted in isolation of the rights of other persons. This implies that where the rights of a person stop where that of others begin. So also the right to belong to a peaceful association. The right as guaranteed under Section 40 of the Constitution is not absolute. It is subject to some limitation(s) which was exemplified in the case of MBANEFO v. MALOKWU [2014] 6 NWLR (PT. 1403) 377.

The case revolves around the right to freedom of association, which is enshrined in the constitution. The dispute revolves around the contention of the Appellant against the Respondents (sued on behalf of the Agbalanze Onitsha Association) that the respondents do not have the authority and power to stop the appellant from participating in Ozo Title Ceremonies and from enjoying his rights and privileges as an Ozo titled man at every Ozo Title ceremony, so long as he is not in breach of any Ozo Rules and the Agbalanze Onitsha constitution. In short, the grouse of the Appellant was that he was denied the right to freely associate within an association in which he is not an ordinary member.

The summation of fact, for proper understanding, is that the appellant as well as some others within Onitsha Community committed acts of rebellion against the constituted authority of the Obi of Onitsha bordering on conferment of a certain title which the Appellant has no power to confer but another authority. For the reason above the Ugwunaobakankpa Kindred group to which the appellant belonged met and decided to take disciplinary actions against the appellant and those others with whom he acted against the position of the Obi-In-Council and thereby suspended them. That said kindred then proceeded to channel the matter of the rebellion and their suspension of the persons to the Onitsha indigenous community where the entire community including the Ozo Society or Association adopted the sanction imposed by the kindred groups.

In resolving the contention of the Appellant against the Respondents, the court noted that:

[W]hen the appellant entered and became a full member of the Agbalanze Society, he did so with the full knowledge and freewill to adhere to the rules and regulations guiding it. Therefore, it is not for him to pick and choose which aspect suits him at a given time and which he is at liberty to do away with. To wish to so choose is to first disengage from the association otherwise, he is bound wholly and entirely to what has been provided by the association for the association or members on how its operations are to be conducted.

In dissecting the court’s holdings on the extent of freedom of association guaranteed under section 40 of the Constitution (as amended), it is important to note the following:

The court's decision in this case delved deeply into the boundaries and extent of which the right to freedom of association applies. The principle is fundamentally protected under section 40 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), allowing individuals the liberty to voluntarily join or leave any peaceful group or association without undue interference. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to certain limitations, especially when it conflicts with the rights of others or public interest. The court held that while the Appellant had the right to associate freely, this right must be balanced against the rules and regulations governing the association he sought to be part of.

On the nexus between the rights to freely associate and the court’s decision, in the case at hand, the principle of freedom of association was pivotal in the court's decision. The court, though, acknowledged the Appellant's right to associate, but emphasized that this right does not override the legal and reasonable restrictions that can be imposed by the association especially where the association has its own self-regulatory law in form of Constitution, Manual or Guidelines. Section 45 of the Constitution was equally referred to not to only apply to laws made by the government but also associations of persons.

Overall, the court ruled in favor of the Respondents, upholding the view that the organization's rules, which were lawfully established, did not constitute an unlawful restriction of Appellant’s rights to join the association he was expunged from by the Respondents sequel to the instruction given by Obi-in-Council, a body supreme over the Agbalanze Onitsha Association. The decision underscores the extent of the right to freedom of association by illustrating that while it is a fundamental right, it is not without limits.


About The Author:

Amina Mustapha Umar is a member of Research & Litigation Directorate, Solace Chambers, Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via 07033346581

About the Contributor:

Qosim A. Muhibudeen, SABUK is the Director Of Research & Litigation. He can be reached via https://muhibqosim.com.ng

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Explanation of the Maxim: Leges Posteriores Priores Contrarias Abrogant by Nana-Aishah Manzumah

Image
If there are two conflicting laws applicable to a circumstance, situation or fact, it bears the question of which of these two conflicting laws shall be considered and applied. One cannot just take any one based on speculative mind since the law has to be certain. In this vain, this piece brings to you a thorough research of the subject matter with adequate authorities. The maxim “ Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant ” is translated as “ [s]ubsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones” — See Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 5327. To put differently, later laws abrogate earlier contrary ones. It is a principle which states that, where two laws or legal instruments conflict, the one adopted later in time, rather than the one adopted earlier, is considered binding on the relevant parties. That is, when two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. The provisions of a later document are contrary to those of an earlier, the earliest must ...
Read more

Non-Eforceability of Memorandum of Understanding & Exceptions thereto By Qosim A. Muhibudeen, SABUK

Image
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in itself not an enforceable contract. It is, by law, a preliminary negotiation upon which a definite future-reaching contract may or may not be birthed. To be enforceable, something more needs be done subject to the clause stated in the agreement. — Author The position of the law is settled that not all agreements are enforceable contracts; even where all the ingredients of a valid and enforceable contract (which include offer, acceptance, and consideration) are present. A good example of this is an agreement with which offer, acceptance, and consideration have all been furnished but the subject matter of the contract is found to be illegal, immoral, or contrary to public policy. So also is the question of enforceability of MOU agreement, which would be given succinct explanation in subsequent paragraphs. It has been a settled law that a Memorandum of Understanding, which, of course and tradition, predates a formal (not in its str...
Read more

The Legal Effect of Dismissing an Application for Leave to Appeal: Is it a dismissal on Merit or that of Striking out? By Qosim A. Muhibudeen

Image
In this week legal publication, we presented the decision of the Court on: The Legal Effect of Dismissing an Application for Leave to Appeal: Is it a dismissal on Merit or that of Striking out? SHORT EXPLANATION : The well settled position of the law, as well captured in the attached flyer, is to the effect that an application for leave to appeal where so required by law, is a condition precedent to the initiation of a valid appeal, whether of an appeal within time or an appeal out of time. An appeal is within time where an appeal is brought within the statutorily prescribed period or time within which such an appeal should be filed against the decision of a lower Court. For instance, an appeal against the decision of a trial Court lying to the Court of Appeal, in a civil matter, is to be brought within three months. Where such appeal is brought before the expiration of the three months, it is an appeal within time. Otherwise, it is an appeal out of time. The law is, befor...
Read more