Bar Leaders Divided Over AGF’s NBA Election Directives

Stories by Steve Aya

Leading members of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) have expressed divergent views over the directives issued by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, concerning the forthcoming NBA national elections, with several senior Lawyers rejecting the intervention, while others defended the Attorney-General’s mediation efforts.

Among those who faulted the directives were former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Prof Chidi Odinkalu; the Eastern Bar Forum (EBF); the Midwest Bar Forum; General Council of the Bar member, Kunle Edun, SAN; and former NBA First Vice-President, John Aikpokpo-Martins. They argued that the Attorney-General lacked the constitutional or statutory authority to issue directives affecting the NBA’s electoral process.

 The Eastern Bar Forum and the Midwest Bar Forum maintained that the NBA is an independent professional body, governed by its Constitution and the Legal Practitioners Act. Both groups aligned themselves with the position of NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, insisting that only the Association’s constitutionally recognised organs or a court of competent jurisdiction, could lawfully determine the fate of the July 18, 2026 election.

 Edun, a former National Publicity Secretary and National Welfare Secretary of the NBA as well as a member of the General Council of the Bar, said although the Attorney-General’s efforts to promote dialogue were commendable, the call for the suspension of the election had no constitutional foundation. According to him, only the NBA National Executive Council, the Board of Trustees or, in exceptional circumstances recognised by law, the General Council of the Bar, could validly intervene in the Association’s electoral process.

 The Senior Advocate also warned against any attempt to use the controversy to return the NBA to the delegates’ voting system, describing universal suffrage and the zoning principle as democratic gains that should be protected. He urged members of the Bar to resist external interference, while encouraging continued dialogue among all stakeholders to resolve concerns surrounding the election.

However, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Jibrin Okutepa, defended the Attorney-General’s intervention, explaining that it followed pending litigation and complaints by members of the Bar over the electoral process. He said the Attorney-General merely facilitated discussions involving past NBA Presidents, the NBA President and representatives of parties in the litigation, adding that participants had voluntarily submitted themselves to the mediation process and should respect its outcome.

 With the July 18 NBA elections fast approaching, the disagreement has further exposed deep divisions within the legal profession over the conduct of the polls, and the limits of executive involvement in the affairs of the Association. Observers believe the outcome of the controversy could shape not only this year’s election, but also future debates on the governance and independence of the Nigerian Bar Association.