The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has raised concerns over the proposed Enugu State Crowd Control and Management Bill, 2026, reportedly sponsored by Hon. Chima Obieze.
The bill, sponsored by the member representing Ezeagu Constituency in the State Assembly, stipulates that any gathering of more than 100 persons without permits attracts 500,000 to 1,000,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment.
The bill had attracted serious criticism from various sections of the state with many calling for its withdrawal, considering what they described as the negative impact it may have on other forms of gathering such as religious gatherings, weddings, funerals, community meetings and other legitimate assemblies.
RULAAC, in a statement on Thursday, acknowledged the responsibility of government to protect lives and ensure public safety during large gatherings, noting that recent stampedes and other crowd-related emergencies in Nigeria underscore the need for proper planning, emergency preparedness and coordination among organisers, security agencies and emergency-management institutions.
However, the organisation warned that public-safety legislation must not be used to subject the constitutional right to peaceful assembly to prior government approval or excessive executive control.
The Executive Director of the RULAAC, Mr Okechukwu Nwanguma in the statement, said Section 40 of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to assemble freely and associate with others, adding that any restriction on the right must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and consistent with democratic principles.
He expressed particular concern over reports that the proposed law could apply to gatherings exceeding 100 persons 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 organisation, 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 judgment in *Inspector-General of Police v. All Nigeria Peoples Party & Ors.*, which rejected police permission as a precondition for peaceful rallies and processions.
RULAAC stressed that there was a distinction between notifying authorities and coordinating with them for public safety, and obtaining permission to exercise a constitutional right.
It said requirements relating to emergency exits, venue capacity, traffic management, fire safety, medical services and coordination with security agencies could be legitimate, but argued that requiring citizens to obtain executive approval before assembling would be fundamentally different.
The organisation also urged a reconsideration of the reported 100-person threshold, saying it could bring ordinary political meetings, community gatherings, religious services, weddings, funerals, civil-society meetings and peaceful protests under an extensive regulatory regime.
RULAAC further expressed concern over the possibility of concentrating broad monitoring, regulatory and enforcement powers in an agency substantially controlled through executive appointments.
It said the issue was particularly important ahead of the 2027 general elections, when legislation affecting freedom of assembly would require careful drafting to guard against selective enforcement, political interference or perceptions that public-safety regulations were being used to restrict civic activities.
The group called on the Enugu State House of Assembly to immediately make the full text of the proposed Bill available to the public and subject it to an open and inclusive public hearing.
It urged civil society organisations, the Nigerian Bar Association, political parties, religious and traditional institutions, security and emergency agencies, community organisations and other stakeholders to be given adequate opportunity to examine the Bill and make submissions.
RULAAC said it was not opposed to the Bill being debated, even if aspects of it were considered objectionable, stressing that rigorous public scrutiny was the appropriate democratic response to potentially controversial legislation.
The organisation called for the removal of any provisions that establish prior permission for peaceful assembly, impose disproportionate criminal sanctions, confer excessive executive discretion or provide for unnecessary surveillance of lawful gatherings.
It added that if such provisions formed the core of the proposed legislation, the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted.
“Public safety and fundamental rights are not competing objectives,” RULAAC said, urging the Enugu State Government to pursue measures that protect people at large gatherings without giving authorities the power to determine whether citizens may gather peacefully in the first place.
