Court Halts NYCN Deregistration Amid Leadership Dispute

Activist moves to join FCTA in suit seeking to compel UNIPORT to produce FCDA director's academic records

A Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a restraining order against the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and the Federal Ministry of Youth Development, directing them to maintain the status quo regarding the alleged deregistration of the National Youth Council of Nigeria (NYCN). The order was given in response to a suit filed by NYCN President Ambassador Sukubo Sara-Igbe Sukubo, challenging the CAC’s decision to deregister the organization.

The controversy began on October 7, 2025, when the CAC, through the Ministry of Youth Development, announced the deregistration of the NYCN, just days after Sukubo’s re-election as president amidst pending court cases. The court’s decision, issued on October 15, 2025, by Justice B.F.M. Nyako, restrains the CAC and its Registrar-General from withdrawing the NYCN’s registration certificate or de-recognizing its existing leadership, trusteeship, and management pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.

The claimants in the case, the Incorporated Trustees of the NYCN and Ambassador Sukubo, argue that the deregistration is unlawful. The defendants, including the CAC, its Registrar-General, the Minister of Youth Development, and the Federal Ministry of Youth Development, have been put on notice. The court has also restrained the Minister and the Ministry of Youth Development from acting on or enforcing the alleged deregistration until the hearing of the substantive motion.

The matter has been adjourned to October 28, 2025, for the hearing of the Motion on Notice. The court’s order aims to preserve the status quo and maintain peace until the next hearing date. The development is significant, as it affects the leadership and management of the NYCN, a prominent youth organization in Nigeria. The court’s decision will have implications for the organization’s future and its relationship with the government. With the hearing scheduled for later this month, the parties involved will have to await the court’s ruling to determine the next course of action.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top