Controversy Trails CAC’s Appointment of Interim Manager for Kaduna’s Al-Manar Foundation

Uzoma Mba

A controversy has emerged around the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) following its decision to appoint Dr. Nazifi Yunus as interim manager of the Al-Manar Education and Development Foundation, an incorporated religious trust based in Kaduna State.

The development has drawn public attention to the actions of the CAC under its Registrar-General, Mr. Ishaq Husaini Magaji, SAN, with critics questioning the scope of the commission’s regulatory authority and the process followed in the intervention.

The matter comes at a period when the administration of President Bola Tinubu has emphasised institutional discipline and regulatory transparency amid increased domestic and international scrutiny. Against this backdrop, the CAC’s involvement in the internal affairs of Al-Manar has sparked debate among legal and governance observers.

Court documents filed at the Federal High Court indicate that the CAC, acting through a letter dated 10 September 2025, suspended the board of trustees of Al-Manar and appointed interim managers to oversee the foundation’s affairs.

According to the filings, the trustees contend that the action was taken without prior notice, without an opportunity for a hearing, and despite the fact that their tenure had not expired. They argue that the decision violated principles of natural justice and exceeded the commission’s supervisory powers.

A source familiar with the case described the move as a regulatory intervention carried out “without the procedural safeguards required by law.” These claims remain before the court and are yet to be determined.

Further issues were raised in sworn affidavits alleging that correspondence was sent to banks used by the foundation, requesting changes to account signatories following the suspension of the trustees. Legal practitioners monitoring the case note that such steps, if established, would raise significant questions about regulatory boundaries, particularly in the absence of a court order.

One senior lawyer following the proceedings observed that regulators are generally empowered to supervise compliance, not to assume direct control of an organisation’s financial operations.

The appointment of Dr. Yunus as interim manager has also attracted scrutiny. Publicly available records indicate that he was previously arrested and investigated by security agencies between 2013 and 2014 in connection with security-related allegations. No public conviction resulted from those investigations, and no official findings have been made against him.

At the time, civil society groups criticised what they described as broad security sweeps targeting religious scholars, while Dr. Yunus publicly denied any wrongdoing. Analysts note that, regardless of outcome, such background matters often attract heightened public sensitivity, particularly in the context of managing a religious institution.

Community representatives associated with Al-Manar say they were not consulted prior to the appointment and maintain that the decision undermined the foundation’s autonomy. These claims form part of the broader dispute now before the court.

The court filings also raise questions about potential conflicts of interest, alleging personal connections between the interim manager and the Registrar-General. While no judicial finding has been made on this issue, governance experts emphasise the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety in public office.

The controversy has unfolded alongside reports that the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation had previously engaged with related matters involving the CAC. Despite this, the Registrar-General has publicly defended the commission’s actions in media engagements.

Legal commentators stress that the case is still pending and that no conclusions should be drawn until the court delivers its judgment.

“This matter goes beyond a single organisation,” a constitutional lawyer said. “It raises broader questions about how regulatory powers are exercised and the limits imposed by law.”

The CAC has not issued a formal response addressing the specific claims contained in the court filings. Observers, however, note that the outcome of the case may have implications for public confidence in regulatory institutions.

As proceedings continue, stakeholders emphasise that all parties are entitled to due process and that the court remains the proper forum for resolving the dispute. Nonetheless, governance advocates warn that adherence to legal safeguards is essential for maintaining trust in public institutions.

“Regulation must be firm, but it must also be lawful,” one civil society advocate noted. “Public confidence depends on restraint, transparency, and respect for due process.”