A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ruled that the membership of the Nigerian Medical Association for medical doctors in Nigeria cannot be mandatory or imposed, but rather voluntary.

Justice Donatus Okorowo, in a judgment delivered on May 6 and made available on May 14, ordered that under Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, as such membership of an association is voluntary.

He gave the ruling in a suit brought before the court by Dr Olusola Adeyelu.

Adeyelu had dragged the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria and The Incorporated Trustees of the NMA to court, on his right to freedom of association.

2019, Adeyelu, a specialist respiratory physician, had written to notify the regulatory body of medical practitioners in Nigeria, MDCN, of his intention to withdraw his membership.

He stated his reasons for the lack of internal democracy in the running of the affairs of the NMA, particularly as regards the indiscriminate imposition of levies, which he considered as extortion.

In 2020, upon payment for the renewal of his practising licence, MDCN insisted that the payment of the NMA building levy was compulsory for all doctors in Nigeria before their practising licence could be renewed.

The association made it a precondition for the mandatory renewal of the practising license for the year without any legal justification.

On September 20, 2021, the plaintiff sued the NMA and MDCAN over what he termed the imposition of unjustifiable charges on medical practitioners and sought a court order declaring the NMA membership as voluntary.

He also prayed to the court to declare that he had the right to resign his membership from the association and still practise as a medical doctor.

Adeyelu contended that the MDCAN had indirectly saddled itself with the duty to serve as a levy collection agent on behalf of the NMA.

Speaking through his counsel, Tope Temokun, the medical doctor challenged the imposition of the NMA building levy as a condition for being eligible for the renewal of a practising licence.

The physician filed an originating summons before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1094/2020.

The MDCN and NMA were listed in the suit as the first and the second defendants respectively.

Adeyelu, among other things, prayed to the court for a declaration that membership of the NMA was voluntary and that neither the NMA nor the regulatory body, MDCAN, could force membership or membership obligation of the NMA on him.

Justice Okorowo, in his judgment, held that membership of the NMA is voluntary, in line with Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

The court upheld the submissions of Adeyelu on his right to freedom of association and also affirmed his right to associate or dissociate from the NMA.

Justice Okorowo declared that the plaintiff may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.

In the suit dated and filed September 1, 2020, supported with a 42-paragraph affidavit sworn and deposed to by the plaintiff, Adeyelu formulated 10 questions for the determination of the court and sought 15 reliefs, resting his case on Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

Among the 15 reliefs sought are: “A declaration that membership of the second defendant as an association registered under the Company and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) as incorporated trustees is not mandatory under the law.

“A declaration that based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the second defendant does not have the powers to impose or continue to impose or enforce its financial resolution and/or its association subscription and/or its building levies or other levies on the plaintiff, having resigned his membership of the second defendant.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from further subjecting the plaintiff to the second defendant’s membership and/or mandatory payment of the second defendant’s association subscription and/or the second defendant’s building levies or other levies before recognising or according to the plaintiff his rights and privileges as a medical practitioner in Nigeria.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from further remitting to the second defendant, 70 per cent of the plaintiff’s mandatory annual practising fees, having ceased to be a member of the second defendant.

“An order of mandatory injunction directing and/or mandating the first defendant to henceforth, within one month of the payment of the plaintiff’s annual practising fees, remit 70 per cent of the plaintiff’s mandatory annual practising fees to the plaintiff, having ceased to be a member of the second defendant.” (The PUNCH)

Update news