By Jane Okafor, Abuja
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has dismissed as unconstitutional and legally unfounded an alleged directive attributed to the Attorney General of the Federation seeking to halt the association’s 2026 national officers’ election, insisting that only its constitutional organs have the authority to alter the electoral process.
In a statement signed by NBA President Afam Osigwe, the association said its attention had been drawn to a purported report of a sub-committee allegedly endorsed by the Attorney General, recommending the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA), postponement of the election, replacement of the current election service provider, establishment of a caretaker committee, incorporation of National Identification Number (NIN) verification into the voting process, and a “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution.
The association rejected the alleged recommendations in their entirety, arguing that the Attorney General lacks the constitutional and statutory powers to issue directives concerning the affairs of the NBA.
According to the statement, the NBA is an independent professional body whose internal affairs cannot be controlled by the executive arm of government. It cited Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, maintaining that none of the circumstances under which an external body may intervene in the association’s affairs had arisen.
The NBA also questioned the authenticity of the purported report, noting that it was not issued on the official letterhead of the Attorney General’s office and that no formal communication had been received from the office.
The association further argued that the recommendations mirrored reliefs being sought in pending lawsuits filed by Egbe Amofin at the High Court of Oyo State, contending that the Attorney General, who convened mediation meetings over the dispute, could neither grant the reliefs sought in court nor impose binding directives on the parties.
The statement disclosed that most past NBA presidents who attended the June 11, 2026 meeting—excluding Wole Olanipekun—considered the lawsuits frivolous and agreed that a sub-committee should only facilitate their withdrawal. It accused the committee of exceeding its mandate by making adverse findings against the NBA president without giving him an opportunity to respond, describing the process as a breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing.
The NBA also criticised the choice of Olanipekun to chair the sub-committee, alleging that his involvement in matters connected to the litigation compromised the committee’s neutrality and rendered its report biased.
Reaffirming its position, the association stressed that the 2026 NBA national officers’ election would proceed as scheduled by the ECNBA, insisting that only the NBA’s National Executive Council possesses the constitutional authority to postpone the poll.
The association also defended its decision not to introduce NIN verification into the election process, explaining that a risk assessment indicated that modifying the current electronic voting platform at this stage could disrupt the election because of possible capacity limitations on the National Identity Management Commission’s authentication system.
The NBA further dismissed suggestions that its election service provider should be replaced because he operates as a sole proprietor, describing such reasoning as discriminatory and noting that many legal practitioners, including senior lawyers, successfully run sole proprietorship law firms.
The association reiterated its commitment to due process, constitutional governance and the independence of the legal profession, maintaining that no external authority can interfere with its democratic succession process outside the provisions of its constitution and the law.
