Our attention has been drawn to a document purporting to be a Report of a Sub-Committee and comments allegedly attributed to the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, which purportedly directs, among other things:
(a) The disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) and the postponement of the 2026 NBA National Officers’ Election.
(b) The termination of the appointment of the current service provider on the ground that he is a sole proprietor, and the appointment of a new service provider.
(c) The establishment of a caretaker committee to conduct the election of National Officers.
(d) The incorporation of the National Identification Number (NIN) into the voters’ data for the conduct of the NBA election.
(e) The “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution to abolish universal suffrage and introduce other fundamental changes.
The Nigerian Bar Association firmly believes that the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation could not have issued such directives, as they are unconstitutional, ultra vires his statutory powers, and amount to an attempt to subject the Nigerian Bar Association to the control of the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Nigerian Bar Association is an independent professional body. By virtue of Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, the only circumstance in which an external body may interfere with the affairs of the NBA is expressly provided therein. None of those circumstances has arisen to justify the purported directives.
We are further strengthened in this position because the alleged directives substantially mirror the reliefs sought in the two Egbe Amofin cases presently pending before the High Court of Oyo State.
The Honourable Attorney General, acting as convener of a mediation meeting or even as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, lacks the authority to grant judicial reliefs sought in pending litigation. A mediator cannot issue binding directives to parties in a matter in which he is himself a participant.
All NBA Past Presidents present at the meeting, save for Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, agreed that the Egbe Amofin suits were frivolous and ought to be withdrawn. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was mandated solely to liaise with the parties towards facilitating the withdrawal of those actions.
It was never authorised to investigate or make findings against the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, who is not even a candidate in the election. Any reliance on memoranda submitted by candidates without first affording the President an opportunity to respond is a clear violation of the constitutional right to fair hearing.
The resolution reached at the meeting of 11 June 2026 was that the Sub-Committee would report back to the full body at a reconvened meeting. From the face of the purported report, it is evident that those present at the meeting neither received nor deliberated upon the report before its alleged adoption. Until such a reconvened meeting considers the report, no lawful decision can arise from it.
Furthermore, even if the Sub-Committee had been properly empowered to review these issues, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, being closely associated with the plaintiffs’ position, could not properly chair such a committee.
His evident involvement creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and undermines the neutrality expected of such an assignment. Consequently, the purported report and its alleged acceptance are fundamentally compromised.
As stated in MOHAMMED v. THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2001) 1 CHR 470 at 485:
“The easily noticeable disfavour manifestly discernible from the proceedings in the court martial betrays an indecent primordial intent of conviction… The trial should therefore be vitiated. The unnecessary prejudice… does not augur well for the tenets and principle of fair hearing enshrined in our Constitution.”
The NBA therefore rejects the purported Sub-Committee report as exceeding its mandate and being irredeemably tainted by bias.
Accordingly, the Nigerian Bar Association states categorically that:
a. The Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body and is not subject to the control or directives of the Office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation or any other arm of government.
b. The 2026 NBA National Officers’ Electoral Process shall continue in accordance with the timetable published by the ECNBA.
c. The NBA participated in the Attorney General’s meeting solely as a Co-Respondent in pursuit of an amicable settlement of the Egbe Amofin litigation. Any proposals arising from such discussions become binding only upon acceptance by all parties and cannot constitute unilateral directives.
d. At no time was the Honourable Attorney General vested with authority to suspend the NBA’s democratic succession process or propose amendments to the NBA Constitution.
e. The purported report is itself suspect, as it is not issued on the official letterhead of the Office of the Honourable Attorney General. The NBA has received no official communication from that office.
f. Following concerns raised regarding the use of NIN in the election, the NBA conducted a risk assessment and concluded that introducing NIN verification at this stage would likely disrupt the electoral process, particularly given the anticipated authentication demands on the NIMC platform.
g. The NBA has constitutionally established decision-making organs and remains bound exclusively by its own constitutional framework. The Office of the Honourable Attorney General is not one of those organs.
h. No wrongdoing has been established against the ECNBA since its constitution.
i. It is discriminatory and unjustifiable to suggest that a sole proprietor cannot serve as the NBA’s service provider when a significant proportion of legal practitioners, including members of the legal profession involved in these processes, operate sole proprietorship law practices.
We are committed to due process of the law.
Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN
President
Kindly find attached:
