ON WHETHER THE NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION (NBA) IS SELF-REGULATORY AND LEGALLY COMPETENT TO VERIFY LAWYERS AND/OR SET STANDARDS FOR CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (CPD): ANALYSIS OF NBA v. KEHINDE (2017) LPELR-49798(CA)
- On Recognition of NBA’s Quasi-Regulatory Role
In Nigerian Bar Association v. Oluwole Kehinde (2017) LPELR-49798(CA), the Court of Appeal decisively recognised the NBA as more than a mere voluntary association. The Court held that, although several bodies are statutorily responsible for legal profession oversight under the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), such as the Body of Benchers, General Council of the Bar, Council of Legal Education, and Supreme Court, the NBA is nonetheless an integral institution within this regulatory architecture.
The Court acknowledged the complementary and overlapping nature of regulatory powers among these bodies. In this regard, it affirmed that the NBA may lawfully undertake verification and validation of legal practitioners, provided such activities are not ultra vires and do not conflict with statutory roles assigned exclusively to other bodies.
- On Stamp and Seal Regime: This is A Judicially Endorsed Regulatory Function
The Court further cited Rule 10(1) of the RPC 2007, now Rules 12(1)-(3) of RPC 2023, which mandates the use of NBA-issued stamps and seals as a prerequisite for the validity of court processes.
In Bello Sarkin Yaki v. Bagudu (2015) LPELR-25721(SC), the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of this rule, stating that the absence of a valid seal and stamp renders a process incompetent. This judicial affirmation solidifies the NBA’s authority to enforce professional standards and confirms that its stamp/seal regime is not only valid but binding.
- OnVerification Exercises: Not an Usurpation
A key thing point takeaway from the Kehinde decision is that the NBA’s verification exercises do not usurp the roles of the Supreme Court, Council of Legal Education, or Body of Benchers, especially where such exercises are carried out in coordination with those bodies. The absence of objection from those institutions was a decisive factor in the Court’s validation of the NBA’s regulatory conduct.
it’s evident that the NBA’s self-regulatory initiatives are lawful, provided they are transparent, non-exclusive, and pursued in good faith for professional integrity.
- CPD as a Logical Extension of the NBA’s Regulatory Mandate
Although the Kehinde case did not specifically address Continuing Professional Development (CPD), its broad recognition of the NBA’s regulatory responsibility strongly supports the validity of the NBA’s CPD programme, especially when viewed through the prism of:
– Rule 11 of the RPC 2023, which mandates CPD participation as a condition for practice; and
– Rule 12, which links CPD compliance to eligibility for the Annual Practising Certificate and use of stamps/seals.
Professional self-regulation is globally accepted and aligns with best practices in jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, and the United States, where CPD is mandatory and enforced by the national or state bar associations.
- In Conclusion
The NBA v. Kehinde decision, read alongside the RPC 2023, proves the following:
– The NBA is not a mere interest group but a legally recognised professional body with regulatory and quasi-disciplinary responsibilities;
– It may lawfully engage in activities such as verification, seal issuance, and CPD oversight, where these align with the LPA and the RPC;
– The stamp and seal policy, CPD requirements, and annual practising certification framework are not arbitrary impositions but rather enforceable professional standards backed by case law, statutory inference, and ethical necessity.
Accordingly, the NBA qualifies as a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) under Nigerian legal practice, albeit with duties to operate in collaboration, not competition, with other statutory bodies.
It is also important to note that any member of the legal profession who is dissatisfied with the current provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) or any policy direction of the Nigerian Bar Association is not without remedy. The appropriate course is to engage the committee currently handling the review and proposed amendments to the RPC by submitting well-articulated proposals for consideration.
Constructive engagement through institutional channels remains the most effective and professional avenue for driving reform within the Bar. Resorting to social media or unregulated public commentary not only undermines the integrity of the Association but may also bring the legal profession into disrepute. As officers of the law and custodians of professional ethics, we must continue to uphold decorum, discipline, and due process in all matters affecting our collective practice.
SIGNED
Olajide Abiodun, Notary Public
Vice Chairman, NBA Ikorodu Branch
Chairman, BOVC
23/6/2025
