Much Ado about ‘First Elected’ Female NBA President

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Two matters caught my attention last week, the fallout from 2026 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) elections, and the conviction of three of the Oriire Kidnappers/Terrorists, Abdulrazak Umar, Yunusa Musa and Shamsu Adamu Sani, members of Darul Salam, an affiliate of the Ansaru terrorist group of Nigeria (the Oriire 3). The two matters raise questions about institutional integrity, the first about respect for legacy and due process within the Bar, and the second, about the capacity of the justice system to deliver outcomes timeously, at least in serious security cases, and our hope of seeing more of this kind of traction 

When Silence is No Longer Golden

A time comes when silence is no longer golden, because the silence becomes unfair to the victim of the attack, particularly when those who are aware of the truth keep quiet. I never thought the day would come when I would have to come out to defend the legacy of my Mother, Dame Priscilla Olabori Kuye, who became the 17th President and first female President of the NBA 1991-1992 at the age of 51 when the NBA was a force to be reckoned with. By the way, my Mother isn’t a self-styled Dame, she was conferred with the highest papal decoration, the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice medal by Pope John Paul II in 1982 at the age of 42, awarded to members of the Laity for their long, distinguished and meritorious service to the Catholic Church. 

People have always said Nigerian women don’t support each other – I can now say that I mostly agree with that assertion, as in recent times, I have experienced it first-hand, not just in my own circumstances, but in that of others. We have watched Dame’s legacy as NBA President being trashed by the so-called Bold Bar campaign of another female and those who hadn’t even qualified as Lawyers when we were at Port Harcourt in 1992. Dame had campaigned vigorously for a fresh mandate, and we were in the hall where the election was to hold, about to vote in Dame as the 18th President of the NBA, when the election, marred with life threatening violence, was truncated, and Dame had to be spirited out of the election venue to safety.  

After the recently concluded questionable NBA elections, I have received numerous calls and messages asking me if Dame was ever the NBA President! I even kept silent during a debate on a WhatsApp platform that I belong to, where the matter was tabled. Why is it now, after almost 35 years, consequent upon the campaign mantra of another female, that a known fact is being questioned – that Dame, the then NBA 1st Vice President in 1991, a position she was was elected to after defeating two esteemed male colleagues at the polls, became the first female NBA President when Clement Akpamgbo, SAN of blessed memory  stepped down as NBA President to become Attorney-General of the Federation? It was a constitutional succession, not an appointment. 

Unlike some who never ran in any NBA elections, but have occupied their NBA positions by virtue of being appointed, Dame has won 5 separate NBA elections – NBA Lagos, Treasurer; NBA National – Financial Secretary, 3rd Vice President, 2nd Vice President and 1st Vice President. 

Although her tenure as NBA President was during the military era, Dame prioritised the defence of human rights and the rule of law. She spearheaded the efforts to secure the release of the “Kuje 5”, detained Lawyers and Activists including late Gani Fawehinmi; Femi Falana; late Dr Beko Ransome-Kuti; late Dr Baba Omojola and late Segun Mayegun. Dame publicly criticised the military regime’s disobedience of court orders, ensured that the NBA performed its role as an independent institutional watchdog and resisted government patronage that could compromise the independence of the NBA. Her stand on issues such as judicial independence, obedience to court orders and arbitrary detention obviously made her unpopular with the military junta, and they wanted her out of the position by any means necessary.

It is therefore, laughable, that those who have recorded no achievements in critical areas such as fighting for the human rights of Nigerians under a military dictatorship, and instead rely on campaign promises, can place emphasis on who was ‘elected’, and refer to an election in which 82,164 people were eligible to vote, but only about 26,184 people actually voted, that is, about 26.1%, because over 70% of eligible voters like myself were unable to vote, not because we didn’t want to, but because we were unable to, due to  disenfranchisement, as their platform for a valid election. 

The ‘elected’ President scored 12,317 votes, about 47.18% or so of the 26.1% that voted in the election, not even up to half of the paltry number of voters; yet, all we hear from the rooftops, are shouts of being the first ‘elected’ female. By whom? A small minority, from an electoral process that was marred by irregularities? How can a person whose mantra is ‘first elected’, but won only 14.9% of the eligible votes claim to be validly elected, and in an election where 70% were disenfranchised? The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) would  have had strong grounds to declare the NBA elections inconclusive, and conduct a rerun election under such circumstances! Because the 70% that were disenfranchised are not only able to make a difference to the election result, but can change it completely if given the chance to vote. See Atuma v APC & Ors (2023) LPELR-60352(SC) per Adamu Jauro, JSC where the Supreme Court held inter alia that “ ‘Inconclusive’ means not leading to a firm conclusion or result; not ending the dispute”. See also Ademola Adeleke & Anor v INEC & Ors 2020 11 N.W.L.R. Pt. 1734 Page 27; Hon. James Abiodun Faleke v INEC & Anor 2016 18 N.W.L.R. Pt. 1543 Page 61 on inconclusive elections. None of the candidates who were declared winners of the election scored up to 25% of the 82,164 eligible votes, that is, 20,541. It therefore beats the imagination, how any beneficiary of a such a flawed process, a person in a glass house built on irregularities and an inconclusive election, believes that they can throw stones at the legacy of another, built on hard work and perseverance, so much so that they think they can erase it.

Truly, some concerned stakeholders such as the 25th President of the NBA, J.B. Daudu, SAN, in a statement he issued, said he was unable to congratulate anyone who emerged as winner from the 2026 NBA elections, and  called for a rerun of the elections for the 70% that were disenfranchised (like me), many as a result of platform failure, authentication issues, non-receipt of the OTP etc. Some have nonetheless, argued that, since some past elections were questionable and allowed to stand, this one shouldn’t be any different. If the so-called election winners are confident about their popularity, surely they mustn’t be afraid to test it with the other 70%. When the majority of the disenfranchised voters have voted, in an election that due process is strictly followed, Lawyers will be satisfied that the 2026 elections are free, fair and credible, even if the outcomes remain the same.

I am proud to say that when I became the Editor of This Day Lawyer in October 2016, the two ladies who held the position before me, Mrs May Agbamuche Mbu and Ms Funke Aboyade, SAN, supported and assisted me to make my transition into the role easy. Each one of them gave me a volume of their publications to study, and for the first few weeks Funke would critique my work until she felt I could go it alone! I remain eternally grateful to both of them. I stood on their shoulders, and built upon their legacies. And, wherever I see them, I make a point of going to greet them, just to honour them. This is the way it should be – according your predecessors their due respect, not pushing your candidacy by diminishing them. We are eager to have a second female NBA President, but, one who emerges properly, not under a cloud – I don’t believe that this is asking for too much. 

Conviction of the Oriire 3

As for the Oriire 3 who were apprehended, prosecuted and convicted on their guilty pleas, the first thing that their trial showed is that the wheels of the Nigerian justice system can not only move fast, but can move with unusual alacrity. Nigerians would like to see more of this type of quick dispensation of justice in their day-to-day cases, and not just for high profile cases, and election petitions which are time bound – see Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution).

Even though criminal cases are also somewhat time bound (see Section 35 of the Constitution), the time lines aren’t specific enough, nor are they adhered to. A person who is placed under arrest, must be informed in writing of the grounds for their arrest within 24 hours of arrest, must be brought to court within a reasonable time (one to a few days) and tried within two months of the date of arrest or detention, if such person is in custody or not entitled to bail, or within three months of arrest or detention, if such accused person has been released on bail – see Section 35(3)-(5) of the Constitution. However, arraignment to judgement becomes fluid, with Section 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) providing for a day to day trial after arraignment ‘where practicable’, and adjournments during trial (see Section 396(4) of ACJA). Each party is allowed 5 adjournments with intervals of a maximum of 14 days, between arraignment and judgement. Judgement must also delivered in writing within 90 days of the conclusion of evidence and final addresses – see Section 294(1) of the Constitution. 

In the case of the Oriire 3, the trial Judge beat the aforementioned timelines, as part of their trial was concluded in record time. The Oriire abductees were rescued on July 10, the date also reported as the date of arrest of the 3 suspects. By July 23, the Oriire 3 had been convicted on the charges they had pleaded guilty to. The trial continues, on the charges they pleaded not guilty to. Unfortunately, so far, they have only been sentenced to life imprisonment. 

While the world may be moving away from the death sentence, I believe that in certain cases, such as kidnapping where the victim dies in captivity, it should be applied. See the Oyo State Kidnapping (Prohibition) Law 2016; Section 24(2)(b) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA).

Several sections of the TPPA provide for the acts which the Oriire 3 were involved in, and their punishments cover various terms of imprisonment ranging up to life imprisonment which they bagged. However, the offences that the Oriire 3 pleaded guilty to, don’t carry the death penalty. Of course, the TPPA has offences that attract the death penalty upon conviction – hostage taking, kidnapping and hijacking are some of such offences. Section 2(2)(b), (d) of the TPPA prohibits any act that is preparatory to or in furtherance of, assists or facilities the act of terrorism, while Section 2(3) thereof defines the act of terrorism to include various acts like intimidation of a population, attack on a person’s life, death and kidnap. Where a condition is given for the release of a person held hostage and death results from the act of kidnapping, the death sentence is applied – see Section 24(2)(b) of the TPPA. 

The pending offences of conspiracy to kidnap, aiding and abetting which the Oriire 3 pleaded not guilty to (see Section 26 of the TPPA), import the punishment of the substantive offence, that is, the death penalty, since Mr Esiyan Adegboye was shot dead during the initial invasion into the school, Mr Michael Oyedokun was beheaded while Deacon John Olalere was also killed, both in captivity. 

By virtue of Section 7(b) & (c) of the Criminal Code Act (CCA) those who actually commit the act, or aid those who commit the act are accessories before or during the fact, and are considered to be principal offenders too; they are liable to the same punishment as those who physically commit the offence. Section 10 of the CCA provides for an accessory after the fact, that is, a person who assists another he/she knows to be guilty of an offence, in order to help them escape punishment, In the case of terrorism, the punishment for an offence such as concealment which is akin to accessory after the fact, is at least 20 years imprisonment upon conviction – see Section 16(1)(b) of the TPPA. However, if charges like conspiracy to kidnap stick, the Oriire 3 may also face the death penalty, if they are convicted. 

Conclusion 

The attempt to diminish Dame Priscilla Kuye’s pioneering and principled leadership of the NBA, is despicable and unnecessary. The fact that the NBA has been in dire need of a female President is undeniable, but legacy earned through service, courage and sacrifice under military rule and as far back as the 1990s, should not be casually and unfairly erased by those seeking to manufacture ‘firsts’.  I rest my case here. 

And, when terrorist acts result in the deliberate killing of victims, the law must be allowed to take its full course, including the death penalty where it is properly prescribed. Swift justice in high-profile cases is welcome; but, consistent, timely and proportionate justice in all cases, remains the real test of any system that claims to uphold the rule of law.