RULAAC raises constitutional concerns over proposed Enugu Crowd Control Bill
The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has raised concerns over the proposed Enugu State Crowd Control and Management Bill, 2026, warning that public safety measures must not be used as a pretext to restrict citizens’ constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
In a statement signed by its Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, on Thursday, RULAAC acknowledged the responsibility of government to protect lives and maintain public safety during large gatherings, particularly in view of recent stampedes and other crowd-related emergencies across Nigeria.
However, the organisation said any legislation aimed at managing crowds must respect constitutional rights and should not subject peaceful assemblies to prior government approval or excessive executive control.
RULAAC specifically expressed concern over reports that the proposed bill would apply to gatherings exceeding 100 people and require organisers to liaise with, obtain clearance from, or otherwise submit to regulatory control by an agency whose leadership would be appointed by the state governor.
According to the group, making government approval or a permit a condition for holding a peaceful gathering could raise serious constitutional questions.
It cited the 2007 Court of Appeal decision in Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors., which rejected police permission as a precondition for peaceful rallies and processions.
“Government has a responsibility to maintain public order, but that responsibility cannot be converted into a power to determine whether citizens may exercise their constitutional freedom of peaceful assembly,” RULAAC said.
The organisation stressed the distinction between notifying authorities and coordinating with them for public safety, on the one hand, and requiring permission to exercise a constitutional right, on the other.
It said measures relating to emergency exits, venue capacity, traffic management, fire safety, medical services and coordination with security and emergency agencies could be legitimate, but warned that requiring citizens to obtain executive approval before assembling would be fundamentally different.
RULAAC also questioned the reported threshold of 100 people, saying it could bring ordinary political meetings, community events, religious services, weddings, funerals, civil-society meetings and peaceful protests under an extensive regulatory regime.
The advocacy group further raised concerns about the concentration of monitoring, regulatory and enforcement powers in an agency whose leadership would be substantially controlled through executive appointments.
It said the issue was particularly sensitive ahead of the 2027 general elections, when political parties, civic organisations and citizens could require greater protection against selective enforcement and political interference.
RULAAC called on the Enugu State House of Assembly to immediately publish the full text of the proposed bill and subject it to an open and transparent public hearing.
The organisation also urged the House to give civil society organisations, the Nigerian Bar Association, political parties, religious and traditional institutions, security and emergency agencies, community groups and other stakeholders sufficient opportunity to examine the proposal and make submissions.
RULAAC said it did not support attempts to prevent the bill from being debated, arguing that the appropriate democratic response to potentially problematic legislation was rigorous public scrutiny.
It called for the removal of any provisions that establish prior permission for peaceful assembly, impose disproportionate criminal sanctions, confer excessive executive discretion or permit unnecessary surveillance of lawful gatherings.
“If such provisions constitute the essential architecture of the proposed legislation, the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted,” the organisation said.
RULAAC maintained that public safety and fundamental rights could be protected simultaneously, arguing that Enugu State could introduce measures to safeguard people attending large gatherings without giving government the power to determine whether citizens could peacefully assemble.
