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 legislation must not become a means of subjecting the constitutional right to peaceful assembly to prior governmental permission or excessive executive control.
In a report made available to SaharaReporters on Thursday, which was signed by its Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, RULAAC said it had followed the public controversy surrounding the bill, which was reportedly sponsored by Hon. Chima Obieze, the member representing Ezeagu State Constituency in the Enugu State House of Assembly. The bill, titled the Enugu State Crowd Control and Management Agency Bill, 2026, proposes that any gathering exceeding 100 persons requires organisers to obtain clearance from a government-appointed agency or face penalties ranging from ₦500,000 to ₦1 million or six months’ imprisonment.
RULAAC acknowledged the legitimate responsibility of government to protect lives and ensure public safety at large gatherings, noting that recent stampedes and other crowd-related emergencies across Nigeria demonstrate the need for proper planning, emergency preparedness and coordination among organisers, the police, NSCDC, fire service, emergency-management agencies and other relevant institutions.
“However, public safety legislation must not become a means of subjecting the constitutional right to peaceful assembly to prior governmental permission or excessive executive control,” the statement read.
The rights group cited Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which guarantees every person the right to assemble freely and associate with others, stating that while this right may be subject to reasonable restrictions genuinely necessary for public safety and public order, such restrictions must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and consistent with a democratic society.
RULAAC expressed particular concern over reports that the proposed legislation would apply to gatherings exceeding 100 persons and require organisers to liaise with, obtain clearance or otherwise submit to regulatory control by an agency whose leadership would be appointed by the governor.
“If the Bill makes government approval or a permit a condition for holding a peaceful gathering, this would raise a fundamental constitutional problem,” RULAAC warned. The group cited the Court of Appeal decision in Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors. (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 457 (CA), where the court rejected the requirement of 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 stated.
The group also emphasised the distinction between notification and coordination for public safety, and permission to exercise a constitutional right.
It noted that reasonable requirements concerning emergency exits, venue capacity, traffic management, fire safety, medical services and coordination with security and emergency agencies may be legitimate, but requiring citizens to obtain executive approval before assembling is “an entirely different matter”.
RULAAC further warned that the reported threshold of 100 persons could potentially bring ordinary political meetings, community gatherings, religious services, weddings, funerals, civil-society meetings and peaceful protests within an extensive regulatory and enforcement regime.
The group expressed concern about the concentration of broad monitoring, regulatory and enforcement powers in an agency substantially controlled through executive appointments, particularly where political parties, civic groups or citizens seeking to criticise or peacefully organise against the government may themselves be subject to the authority of that agency.
“At a time of heightened political activity ahead of the 2027 elections, legislation affecting freedom of assembly must be drafted with exceptional care to prevent selective enforcement, political interference or the perception that public-safety regulation is being used to constrain opposition or civic activity,” RULAAC stated. The rights group called on the Enugu State House of Assembly to make the complete text of the proposed Bill immediately available to the public and subject it to an open, inclusive and transparent public hearing, giving civil society, the Nigerian Bar Association, political parties, religious and traditional institutions, security and emergency agencies, community organisations and other stakeholders adequate opportunity to examine and make submissions on the Bill.
RULAAC clarified that it does not support attempts to prevent the proposal from being debated merely because aspects of it may be objectionable, stating that “the appropriate democratic response to a potentially problematic Bill is rigorous public scrutiny”.
The group recommended that any provisions establishing prior permission for peaceful assembly, disproportionate criminal sanctions, excessive executive discretion or unnecessary surveillance of lawful gatherings should be removed, adding that if such provisions constitute the essential architecture of the proposed legislation, the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted.
“Public safety and fundamental rights are not competing objectives. Enugu State can protect people attending large gatherings without acquiring the power to determine whether citizens may gather peacefully in the first place,” RULAAC concluded.
The controversy surrounding the bill has drawn widespread condemnation, with the Forum of Former Members of the Enugu State House of Assembly, led by former Speaker Denge Josef Onoh, calling for its immediate withdrawal on Wednesday.
The former lawmakers warned that the bill’s provisions on the definition of a “large gathering” and the associated penalties could restrict citizens from freely assembling for weddings, funerals, community town halls and religious gatherings without prior state authorization.
The Nigeria Democratic Congress governorship candidate in the state, Sir Chinyeaka Ohaa, also condemned the bill, describing it as “a desperate attempt to stifle free assembly and silence opposition voices in Enugu State”.
The bill remains before the Enugu State House of Assembly, with no public hearing date yet announced.