Tag: NBA

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

In a 09 April 2026 publication reported by TheNigeriaLawyer, titled ‘“NBA Must Defend Rule of Law” — Okutepa SAN Demands Action on Electoral Act 2026, Kicks Against ₦10m Fine as Intimidation of Lawyers,’ a respected legal practitioner and public affairs analyst, Chief J. S. Okutepa, SAN, expressed concern over what he perceives as a decline in the effectiveness of the legal profession in promoting good governance and accountability, calling on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to more actively defend the rule of law and ensure legislative compliance with constitutional standards. His critique focuses on the Electoral Act 2026, particularly section 138, which provides as follows: “138. (1) An election may be questioned on the grounds that the – (a) election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election. (2) An act or omission which may be contrary to an instruction or directive of the Commission or of an officer appointed for the purpose of the election but which is not contrary to the provisions of this Act shall not of itself be a ground for questioning the election. (3) Where the court makes a determination that an election is being questioned by a political party or candidate on grounds outside of those provided for under subsection (1), the court shall impose penalties of not less than ₦5,000,000 on the counsel and not less than ₦10,000,000 on the petitioner.”

Chief Okutepa, SAN, argues that these provisions are unconstitutional and detrimental to access to justice. In particular, he objects to the imposition of substantial financial penalties, contending that such sanctions are excessive, intimidatory, and capable of discouraging legitimate electoral challenges, thereby undermining the right to fair hearing. He further contends that the restriction of permissible grounds for election petitions unduly limits the ability of candidates and voters to seek redress, with the potential effect of shielding electoral irregularities from judicial scrutiny and weakening democratic accountability. More broadly, he criticizes what he views as increasing politicization and ethical decline within the legal profession, urging a return to the core standards of the Rules of Professional Conduct and a renewed commitment by both the Bar and the Bench to their role as custodians of justice. He ultimately calls for an urgent review of the Electoral Act 2026, warning that failure to address these concerns may erode public confidence in both the legal system and Nigeria’s democratic process.

With profound respect to the learning, stature, and patriotic interventions of Mr. J. S. Okutepa, SAN, I consider it necessary to respond, respectfully, to his said criticism of section 138 of the Electoral Act, 2026 and, in particular, the sanction regime attached to petitions founded on grounds outside those prescribed by the Act. As highlighted above, Learned Silk Okutepa’s criticism is that the provision is unconstitutional, intimidatory, and injurious to access to justice and fearless advocacy. I wish to start by noting that Chief Okutepa’s concern is not frivolous; whenever the law imposes a personal financial consequence on counsel, serious reflection is warranted. I agree that the Bar must always remain vigilant against any legal regime that may chill genuine advocacy or punish counsel merely for being courageous, unpopular, or innovative. Thus the alarm raised by Chief Okutepa, SAN is understandable. However, with equal respect, I submit that the conclusion that section 138 is, without more, unconstitutional or an impermissible intimidation of lawyers does not sufficiently account for the special constitutional character of election litigation, the text of the Act itself, the long-settled doctrine that election petitions are creatures of statute, and the professional duty of counsel to remain within the bounds of extant law.

The starting point must be the statute as actually published. Section 138(1) of the Electoral Act, 2026 states that an election may be questioned only on two grounds: first, that the election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the Act; and second, that the respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast. Section 138(2) further clarifies that an act contrary only to an INEC instruction or directive, but not contrary to the Act itself, is not by itself a ground for questioning the election. Section 138(3) then provides that where the court determines that a political party or candidate has questioned an election on grounds outside those in section 138(1), the court shall impose penalties of not less than ₦5,000,000 on counsel and not less than ₦10,000,000 on the petitioner.

That text matters. It means the sanction is not triggered by mere failure, weak advocacy, or even an ultimately unsuccessful petition. It is triggered where the court determines that the petition was brought on grounds outside the statutory grounds the Act recognizes. In other words, the provision is aimed, not at losing litigation, but at a category of incompetent invocation of election-petition jurisdiction as defined by the statute itself.

This distinction is central. Courts impose costs every day. Courts also strike out proceedings for want of jurisdiction every day. Neither costs nor jurisdictional discipline is inherently unconstitutional. The question, therefore, is not whether a lawyer may lose a case without punishment; plainly, that is not the point of section 138(3). The real question is whether the legislature may attach consequences to the invocation of the highly specialized, time-bound machinery of election adjudication on grounds the Act itself does not permit. In my respectful view, that question must be answered against the backdrop of the sui generis nature of election petitions. Section 285 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 establishes election tribunals and confers exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions as to whether a person has been duly and validly elected. The Constitution also imposes tight timelines for determining election petitions, reflecting a design of urgency, finality, and democratic stability. Election petitions are therefore not ordinary civil suits in which the court’s jurisdiction may be approached with broad common-law elasticity. They are special proceedings, tightly structured by constitutional purpose and statutory design. That is why Nigerian election law has long been treated as a field of strict compliance, compressed timelines, and limited remedial windows. The Constitution creates the adjudicatory framework; the Electoral Act supplies procedural and substantive content within that framework. Once the lawmaker has expressly defined the grounds on which an election may be challenged, the filing of a petition outside those grounds is not a mere pleading defect. It is an attempt to activate a special jurisdiction on bases that the statute does not recognize. It is here that the argument from access to justice must be carefully handled.

Access to justice is fundamental. But access to justice has never meant access to every procedure on every conceivable ground.

A person has access to the probate court only within probate law; access to judicial review only within public-law thresholds; access to election tribunals only within election-petition law. To say that the legislature has defined the conditions for invoking a specialized jurisdiction is not, without more, to deny access to justice. It is to regulate the legal doorway through which that access must be pursued. Indeed, Chief Okutepa’s comments appears to blend at least two distinct concerns: first, whether section 138 has narrowed the grounds of election petitions too severely; and second, whether the financial sanctions attached to filings outside those grounds are too harsh and capable of inducing fear in counsel. Those are related but different questions. One may legitimately debate the wisdom of narrowing the grounds. But even if that policy debate is open, it does not automatically follow that a sanction for invoking election-petition jurisdiction on non-statutory grounds is unconstitutional. The better analytical approach is to separate the policy wisdom of the grounds from the legal validity of the sanction attached to proceedings brought outside those grounds.

In fairness, there is room for serious debate over the legislative narrowing itself. It’s noteworthy that section 138 of the 2026 Act has omitted some grounds previously familiar in Nigerian election law, including qualification-related challenges such as certificate forgery. That policy choice has attracted criticism from several quarters. The concern is understandable. But once the Act, rightly or wrongly, has spoken in clear terms, counsel do not become free to ignore it in the name of moral outrage. Until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction or amended by the legislature, the law remains the law. A lawyer may challenge the validity of the section in an appropriate proceeding; what a lawyer should not do is proceed as if the statutory text does not exist.

That brings one to professional ethics. Rule 15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023 is anchored on representation within the bounds of the law. RPC 15 of the RPC 2023 prohibits a lawyer from advancing a claim unwarranted under existing law except by a good-faith argument for extension, modification, or reversal. The Rules were made by the General Council of the Bar and took effect from 1 January 2024. That ethical framework is important. It does not command timidity. It does not outlaw creativity. It does not reduce advocacy to mechanical conservatism. What it forbids is the knowing advancement of a claim unwarranted under existing law, except on a genuine and intellectually honest invitation to change the law. That means a lawyer who wishes to test section 138 constitutionally must present that challenge as exactly that: a good-faith constitutional challenge to the validity of the provision. What would be professionally unacceptable is to file an election petition on grounds the statute plainly does not permit, while pretending that those grounds are already legally available within the existing election-petition framework. The former is principled law reform litigation; the latter risks being a punishable abuse of the process of a special court, and may well be interpreted as a form of violation of Rule 15 of the RPC 2023 since every violation of the RPC is a form of professional misconduct.

The comparative picture also does not support the broad suggestion that sanctions or strict filtering mechanisms in election-related litigation are alien to democratic systems. In the United Kingdom, election petitions are statutory creatures governed by a highly structured legal regime under the Representation of the People Act 1983. The law requires strict compliance with procedural conditions, including the provision of security for costs, and confines challenges to specified grounds, within defined timelines and before designated courts. Official guidance further underscores the technical and regulated nature of this process, reflecting a system designed to ensure that election disputes are pursued within a tightly controlled statutory framework. In India, election disputes are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which establishes a detailed, formal, and exclusive statutory framework. Election petitions must be brought on specifically enumerated grounds and determined by designated courts, underscoring that such proceedings are not free-form equitable complaints but strictly regulated statutory processes. The structure of the Act, as reinforced by judicial interpretation, reflects the settled principle that election disputes must be pursued through this special statutory route rather than through generalized collateral proceedings. Further, in the United States, although the procedural context differs from Nigeria’s sui generis election-petition regime, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes a clear standard of professional responsibility in litigation. Under Rule 11, every filing constitutes a certification by counsel that it is not made for any improper purpose, that the legal claims are warranted by existing law or supported by a non-frivolous argument for its extension or modification, and that the factual assertions have evidentiary support or are likely to have such support upon reasonable inquiry. Where these obligations are breached, the court may impose appropriate sanctions on counsel, the party, or both, including monetary penalties and cost orders or other measures designed to deter repetition of the offending conduct. The philosophy underpinning Rule 11 is neither punitive nor repressive; it is regulatory and protective, aimed at preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings by ensuring that the courts are not burdened with claims that are legally unsustainable, factually baseless, or advanced for improper purposes. Importantly, Rule 11 does not stifle legitimate advocacy. On the contrary, it expressly accommodates good-faith legal innovation by permitting arguments aimed at extending or modifying existing law. What it prohibits is not bold advocacy, but frivolous or legally unwarranted invocation of judicial process.The American position illustrates a broader and widely accepted legal principle:
the right of access to court is inseparable from the duty of responsible litigation conduct.

In this light, sanction regimes (when properly structured and judiciously applied) are neither aberrations nor instruments of intimidation, and certainly do not constitute any exotic assault on advocacy. Rather, they represent integral components of modern procedural law and form part of the ordinary toolkit by which legal systems safeguard the integrity of adjudication. Their purpose is not to stifle legitimate advocacy, but to regulate the responsible invocation of judicial process, ensuring that the courts are not burdened with abusive, frivolous, or legally unwarranted filings. In doing so, such mechanisms perform a vital balancing function, maintaining equilibrium between the fundamental right of access to justice and the equally compelling necessity of preventing abuse of court process, preserving judicial economy, and upholding public confidence in the administration of justice. None of this is to say that every sanctioning clause is automatically just, wise, or proportionate. That would be too sweeping. A mature and reasonable position must acknowledge the legitimate anxieties behind Chief Okutepa’s intervention. Minimum sanctions of ₦5,000,000 against counsel and ₦10,000,000 against a petitioner are severe. Severity invites scrutiny. Therefore, there is room to ask whether the figures are not excessive, whether the provision should not expressly preserve counsel’s immunity for bona fide constitutional testing, whether sanctions should not be discretionary rather than mandatory, and whether the law should not require a finding of bad faith, recklessness, or gross negligence before personal sanctions are imposed. Those are legitimate reform questions. However, they remain mere reform-questions; they do not, standing alone, establish unconstitutionality.That distinction, again, is crucial. A law may be debatable without being unconstitutional. A sanction may be harsh without being legally void. To strike down section 138(3), one must do more than say it is stern, unpopular, or capable of causing caution in counsel. One must demonstrate a concrete inconsistency with the Constitution.

Chief Mr. Okutepa’s argument invokes concerns bothering on fair hearing and access to justice, but section 138 does not bar petitions as such; it only regulates the grounds upon which an election petition may be brought, and it punishes the invocation of that regime on non-statutory grounds (that’s, grounds not approved by the statute). That is a much narrower proposition than a total denial of access to court. Nor should the Bar lightly embrace the proposition that every statutory penalty touching counsel is an intimidation of lawyers. The legal profession can rightly insist on independence, but independence is not insulation from professional responsibility. Lawyers are ministers in the temple of justice, not merely mouthpieces for every grievance dressed up as law. If the law says an election may be questioned only on specified grounds, a lawyer does not ennoble disobedience by calling it courage. True courage lies in either bringing the petition within the law or forthrightly challenging the law itself through proper constitutional argument.

There is also a deeper institutional concern. Election litigation does not affect only the immediate parties. It affects democratic transitions, public confidence, governmental continuity, and national stability. The compressed timelines for election petitions under the Constitution reflect the public importance of electoral finality. A regime that allows the election-petition window to be clogged with grounds the statute does not recognize would consume scarce adjudicatory time, over-burden respondents and tribunals, and prolong political uncertainty. In that setting, deterrence against plainly incompetent grounds is not necessarily a form of hostility to justice; it may instead be part of efforts at preserving the functional integrity of electoral justice.

What, then, is the most balanced position? In my humble view, it is this: if one objects to the narrowing of election-petition grounds in section 138(1), one should say so openly and advocate amendment. If one believes section 138(3) is unduly harsh, one should argue for proportional recalibration. If one considers the provision unconstitutional, one should mount a direct and disciplined constitutional challenge through a lawsuit. But until the law is changed or invalidated, lawyers should not present petitions on grounds the statute plainly excludes and then characterize the legal consequences as persecution. Fidelity to the rule of law includes fidelity to the law one dislikes, subject always to the right to challenge it through lawful means. Accordingly, with the greatest respect to Mr. Okutepa, SAN, I would respectfully submit the following by way of conclusion:

1. Chief Okutepa’s broader concern for the health of the profession and the rule of law is worthy of serious consideration. The Bar should indeed resist any attempt to turn legal practice into an instrument of political intimidation or judicial capture. That much is unassailable.

2. However, section 138 of the Electoral Act, 2026, is clear in limiting election petitions to two grounds and in attaching minimum sanctions where petitions are brought outside those grounds. That clarity means the debate should be conducted on the footing of the actual statutory text, not on a looser impression of it.

3. There is an important difference between challenging a law and ignoring or violating it. A lawyer may, in good faith, seek extension, modification, reversal, or constitutional invalidation of an existing legal rule. But a lawyer may not ethically proceed as though a plainly extant statutory restriction does not exist. That is where Rule 15 of the RPC becomes especially relevant.

4. Sanctions for abusive, incompetent, or legally unwarranted invocation of specialized judicial process are not unknown to comparative legal systems. Strict statutory control is especially common in election disputes, precisely because such disputes implicate democratic order and institutional legitimacy.

5. The better reform conversation is not to collapse everything into the language of intimidation. It is to ask whether the grounds in section 138(1) are too narrow and whether the minimum sanctions in section 138(3) should be refined, perhaps to better distinguish bad-faith abuse from bona fide constitutional testing. That would be a more sober and useful legislative conversation.

In the end, democracy is not protected by unbounded litigation. It is protected by lawful litigation. The legal profession best serves the rule of law not by treating every statutory limit as an oppression, but by discerning the difference between principled challenge and impermissible overreach. A mature Bar must defend access to justice, yes; but it must also defend jurisdictional discipline, professional candour, and the integrity of electoral adjudication. That is not fear. That is fidelity.

(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo
(09 April 2026)

 

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

(1). *Introduction*

Reports that the High Court of Oyo State sitting in Ibadan, presided over by Honourable Justice Y. S. Adekunle in Suit No. I/205/2026, directed the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to adopt Aare Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN (reportedly adopted by Egbe Amofin O’odua) as the sole candidate for the forthcoming NBA presidential election have generated widespread debate within the legal community.

The controversy raises fundamental legal questions concerning the constitutional framework governing NBA elections, the powers of regional fora such as Egbe Amofin O’odua, the principle of universal suffrage within the NBA, and the limits of judicial intervention in the democratic processes of voluntary professional associations.

These issues must be examined not through regional politics but through the binding provisions of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association, 2015 (as amended in 2025). For lawyers, whose profession is anchored on constitutionalism and the rule of law, nothing must supersede the supremacy of the Association’s Constitution.

(2). *The Constitutional Framework Governing NBA National Elections*

The NBA Constitution establishes a universal suffrage system conducted through electronic voting. Section 10(6) provides that “Election into National Offices shall be by universal suffrage and electronic voting as set out in the Second Schedule to this Constitution.” The implication is clear: the electorate is not limited to regional bodies, caucuses, or delegates. Rather, all eligible members of the NBA constitute the electoral college. Section 4(1)(b) further provides that any member who fails to pay Annual Practising Fees on or before 31 March loses the right to vote or be voted for.

Accordingly, the NBA electorate consists of lawyers who have paid their practising fees and branch dues. Section 10(1) vests responsibility for conducting elections exclusively in the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), while Section 10(2) provides that the procedures governing elections are set out in the Second Schedule.

There is therefore NO constitutional provision empowering any regional forum (such as Egbe Amofin O’Odua) or a court of law to determine who must emerge as NBA President.

(3). *Historical Context of Universal Suffrage In The NBA*

Before 2015, NBA elections were conducted through a delegate system, where branch representatives voted on behalf of members. This system concentrated electoral power in the hands of a limited number of delegates. The 2015 constitutional reform introducing universal suffrage and electronic voting fundamentally transformed this structure by allowing every financially compliant lawyer to vote directly.

This reform significantly expanded democratic participation within the Association and placed ultimate electoral authority in the hands of the entire membership. Any process, political or judicial, that restricts electoral choices risks undermining this constitutional reform.

(4). *The Constitutional Status Of Egbe Amofin O’odua*

Egbe Amofin O’odua is a respected and influential association of lawyers of Yoruba extraction. It has historically served as a forum for consultations, mentorship, and promotion of candidates from the South-West. There is nothing unconstitutional about such political engagement. In democratic systems, political groups are free to organise and support candidates. However, Egbe Amofin is not a constitutional organ of the NBA. The Constitution recognises organs such as (a). the General Meeting, (b). the National Executive Council, (c). the National Executive Committee, (d). the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA). Regional professional associations are not decision-making organs under the NBA Constitution. Accordingly, while Egbe Amofin may adopt and support a candidate, it cannot impose a candidate on the NBA electorate.

(5). *The Constitutional Limits of Resolutions of Regional Bodies*

Recent discussions within the Nigerian Bar have highlighted concerns regarding the implications of resolutions purportedly adopted by regional bodies concerning NBA presidential elections. It is important to state clearly that regional resolutions cannot override constitutional provisions. The Constitution of the NBA is the supreme legal framework governing the affairs of the Association. Any act, decision, or resolution inconsistent with the Constitution must necessarily yield to the Constitution. Thus, even if a regional forum, such as Egbe Amofin, adopts a candidate through consensus, such adoption cannot (a). prevent other qualified lawyers from contesting the election, (b). compel other aspirants to withdraw from the race, or (c). bind the entire membership of the Nigerian Bar Association. At best, such adoption remains a political endorsement, not a constitutional command.

(6). *NBA Constitutional Provisions On Power-Rotation And Democratic Competition*

The idea of rotational presidency within the NBA has evolved over time as a political convention, and later as a constitutional provision, designed to promote regional balance within the leadership of the Association. The arrangement is useful in maintaining a sense of inclusion within the diverse Nigerian Bar. This is why it is also recognised in the Constitution (see Section 10(5)). However, where the presidency rotates to a particular region/zone, the constitutional framework still permits multiple candidates from that region/zone to contest the election. By virtue of Section 9(3) of the NBA Constitution, where the office of the NBA President is rotated to a particular Zone, any lawyer from that Zone who (1). has paid practising fees and branch dues for three consecutive years (including the election year), (2). is in private legal practice, (3). has previously served as a member of the National Executive Council for at least two years, and (4). is not less than fifteen years post-call, is constitutionally qualified to contest the office (of the NBA President). Adoption by any person or section, or regional group plays no role whatsoever as a qualifying factor for election into any NBA office. Indeed, in the 2026 election cycle, following the constitutional provisions on rotation among Zones (and internal rotation within sub-zones), the presidency is expected to emerge from the South-West geopolitical zone. However, this does not mean that only one lawyer from the South-West is entitled to contest. Every qualified lawyer from that region retains the full constitutional right to aspire to the office. The final decision must be made by the entire electorate of the Nigerian Bar Association through universal suffrage.

(7). *The Limits of Judicial Intervention In NBA’s Internal Electoral Processes*

Courts of law play a critical role in safeguarding legality and protecting rights within voluntary or professional associations such as the NBA. However, judicial intervention must always be exercised with caution, especially where such intervention affects internal democratic processes. Professional associations thrive on institutional autonomy and internal democracy. If a judicial order has the practical effect of limiting the electoral choices available to thousands of lawyers across Nigeria, such consequences must be carefully examined against the constitutional provisions governing the Association. Courts must always strive to preserve, not inadvertently distort, the democratic architecture established by the governing constitution of the institution concerned. If regional bodies such as Egbe Amofin were permitted to impose candidates on the NBA through resolutions or litigation, the consequences could be troubling. Other regional or sectional fora, such as the Eastern Bar Forum, Arewa Lawyers Forum, the Midwest Bar Forum, the Young Lawyers Forum, MULAN, CLASFON, NACL, BOSAN, and other sectional groups, could attempt similar strategies. The result would be multiple competing claims over the same election, potentially leading to institutional chaos. The Nigerian Bar Association cannot function effectively if its electoral process becomes subject to fragmented sectional control. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently maintained that courts must exercise restraint in matters relating to the internal affairs of voluntary associations. In Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, the Supreme Court held that issues relating to internal selection of candidates within an organisation are generally non-justiciable. This principle was reaffirmed in Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310, where the Court emphasised that courts are not established to determine who should emerge as leader or candidate within an association except where the governing constitution has been breached. Similarly, in Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556, the Supreme Court reiterated that where an organisation’s constitution provides a procedure for selecting candidates, courts will intervene only where that procedure has been violated. These authorities underscore a fundamental constitutional principle: the courts are guardians of legality, not substitutes for the democratic processes established by the constitution of an association. Accordingly, the NBA, like every voluntary association, enjoys autonomy over its internal affairs. Unless it is shown that the association has violated its own Constitution or the law, the courts will not interfere. Courts do not substitute their own judgment for that of a political party or voluntary association in matters within their internal domain. See Alhaji Balarabe Musa v. Peoples Redemption Party (1981) 2 NCLR 763 at 769.
Similarly, in Ogboro v. Registered Trustees of Lagos Polo Club (2016) LPELR-40061(CA), the Court of Appeal held (per Nimpar, JCA) that “when one joins a voluntary association, he must be prepared to abide by the rules and regulations of the association.” See also Mbanefo v. Molokwu (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1153) 431.
Consequently, a court has no power to amend, add to, or subtract from the Constitution of a voluntary organisation, nor to depart from its clear provisions in search of a convenient interpretation. See Omatseye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017) LPELR-42719(CA); Aromolaran v. Agoro (2014) LPELR-24037 (SC); and Adewunmi v. Attorney‑General of Ekiti State (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.751) 474.

(8). *The Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty And The Electoral Sovereignty Of NBA Members*

At a deeper level, the NBA electoral system reflects the democratic principle of popular sovereignty: the idea that ultimate authority resides in the people. Within the NBA, that sovereignty resides in financially compliant members across Nigeria. By adopting universal suffrage and electronic voting, the NBA has constitutionalised the principle that the presidency of the Association derives legitimacy from the collective will of its members, not from regional endorsement. Regional consultations may influence politics, but they cannot replace the sovereign electoral will of the Bar.

(9). *Conclusion*

The constitutional framework of the Nigerian Bar Association leaves no room for ambiguity. Elections into national offices are conducted through universal suffrage and electronic voting, and the electorate consists of all financially compliant members of the Bar across Nigeria. The Constitution vests responsibility for conducting elections exclusively in the ECNBA. Regional associations, professional caucuses, and political forums may legitimately organise consultations, endorse candidates, and campaign vigorously for their preferred aspirants. Such political activity is part of the democratic culture of any vibrant professional body.

However, these endorsements remain political expressions of preference, not constitutional determinations of leadership. The presidency of the Nigerian Bar Association cannot therefore be determined by regional adoption, caucus resolutions, or sectional endorsements or the courts. It can only be determined through the constitutional mechanism of universal suffrage, in which eligible lawyers across Nigeria freely exercise their voting rights.

Ultimately, the sovereignty of the Nigerian Bar Association resides not in regional blocs, not in political caucuses, and not in court orders nor in judicial directives, but in the collective will of its members expressed through the ballot. That constitutional principle lies at the heart of the democratic identity of the Nigerian Bar Association and must remain inviolate.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
(13 March 2026)

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

*INTRODUCTION*

The recent letter, dated 4 October 2025, issued by the Director of Legal Services in the Legal Unit of the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), challenging the validity of a pre-action notice authored by Hon. Kene Nnadi on the ground that it bore a 2024 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) stamp and seal instead of 2025, has sparked significant professional debate. Trending news reports on 07 October 2025 indicate that the University formally questioned Hon. Nnadi’s pre-action notice, effectively demanding that he “establish your 2025 practising status” by providing proof of his current right to practise, rather than relying on what OAU perceives as an outdated seal. The letter, signed by Yinka Ayantola, Esq., Director of Legal Services, and copied to key university officials, reads in part:

“Re: Pre-action Notice Pursuant to Section 49 of the Obafemi Awolowo University Act 2019. I refer to your letter to the Vice-Chancellor, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, (the University) referenced KFN/PH.CH/2025/ VOL.J/00063 and dated 11/09/2025 on the above-captioned subject. It is our observation that the seal you affixed to your letter under reference is your 2024 seal. As you are aware, you have a duty to pay your practising fee for 2025 to enable you to write as a lawyer. It is therefore our request that you establish your right to practise as a lawyer for the year 2025 as required by the relevant regulations or rules. I have the instructions of the University to request you to do the needful. Thank you. Signed, Yinka Ayantola, Esq., Director, Legal Services.”

OAU’s position is that the use of a 2024 seal implies that Hon. Nnadi has not renewed his practising status for 2025, casting doubt on his legal capacity to issue the notice. The University frames the matter as one of professional legitimacy and procedural propriety, asserting that any lawyer engaging in legal processes must demonstrate a valid, current practising licence rather than rely on a prior seal. With due respect, the current author submits that this stance reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal purpose, scope, and effect of the NBA stamp and seal, as well as a failure to distinguish between the distinct functions of the NBA seal and the Annual Bar Practising Fee (BPF). This essay seeks to restate, with precision and supporting authority, the proper legal and professional position on the matter.

*POSITION OF THE COURTS*

Nigerian appellate courts have conclusively addressed the question of whether an expired NBA stamp or seal invalidates a legal process. Two decisions are directly on point: *CBN v. Ekpo & Anor* (2021) LCN/15155 (CA) and *Emechebe v. Ceto Int’l (Nig.) Ltd.* [2018] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1631) 520 at 534, paras. B–C (per Abubakar, JCA). In Emechebe, the Respondent’s originating process bore an expired NBA stamp. The Court of Appeal declined to strike it out, holding that such insistence would amount to pushing technicalities too far. The Court held that the purpose of the NBA stamp and seal is not to determine the validity of legal documents but to protect the integrity of the legal profession by preventing quacks, impostors, and meddlesome interlopers from masquerading as lawyers and deceiving unsuspecting litigants. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed this position in CBN v. Ekpo, emphasizing that the use of an expired seal does not invalidate a legal process. Until and unless a later decision of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court overturns these decisions, Emechebe and Ekpo remain binding precedents.

*THE PURPOSE AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THE NBA SEAL*

The NBA seal is a professional identifier: a mark of authenticity that verifies that the person affixing it is duly called to the Nigerian Bar and enrolled to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Its core objective is to prevent unauthorised persons from presenting themselves as lawyers. Once a genuine NBA seal is affixed to a document, it conclusively confirms that its author is a legal practitioner. If, as in Hon. Nnadi’s case, there is no allegation of forgery or counterfeit, then the seal has effectively performed its purpose. The year inscribed on the seal is secondary to its authenticating function. Yhus, whether the seal bears “2024” or “2025” does not affect its validity or the legal effect of the document to which it is affixed.

*DOES THIS PRINCIPLE APPLY ONLY TO COURT PROCESSES?*

Some lawyers have observed that the judicial authorities cited relate to court processes, whereas Hon. Nnadi’s document is a pre-action notice: letter, not a pleading. With due respect, that distinction is legally immaterial. The courts’ reasoning in Emechebe and Ekpo is not limited to the type of document but extends to the purpose of the seal itself: to authenticate the professional identity of the author. The seal’s function is the same whether it appears on a writ of summons, affidavit, contract, or letter: it signifies that the document emanated from a lawyer duly called to the Bar. If an expired seal does not invalidate a court process (a document that directly invokes judicial jurisdiction) it cannot logically invalidate a pre-action notice or any other letter.

*RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (RPC) 2023: SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION*

Rule 10 of the RPC 2023 provides that “A lawyer, acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any government department or Ministry or any corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.” Subrule (2) defines legal documents broadly to include pleadings, affidavits, agreements, deeds, legal opinions, letters, memoranda, and reports. Subrule (3) further states that any such document signed or filed without a seal “shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.” Importantly, the rule does not require that the seal must correspond to the current practising year. Judicial interpretation (especially in Emechebe and Ekpo) makes it clear that an expired seal satisfies the purpose of Rule 10: authentication of the author’s status.To interpret Rule 10 otherwise, would contradict these appellate authorities and exalt administrative formalism over substantive justice.

*DISTINGUISHING THE NBA SEAL FROM THE ANNUAL BAR PRACTISING FEE (BPF)*

A clear distinction must be drawn between the NBA Seal and the Bar Practising Fee (BPF), as the two serve entirely different purposes under the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) and the RPC.

(a) *The Bar Practising Fee (BPF): Licence to Practise:* Payment of the BPF authorises a lawyer who has already been called to the Bar to engage in active legal practice for a specific year. It functions as a licence renewal, conferring the right to practise law for that year. Failure to pay the BPF does not erase one’s qualification as a lawyer; it only means the person may not lawfully practise during that year until payment is made.

(b) *The NBA Seal: Proof of Qualification:* The NBA seal, by contrast, authenticates qualification, not annual licensing. It confirms that the bearer is a lawyer duly called to the Bar and enrolled under Sections 2, 22, and 24 of the LPA. The seal serves as protection against quackery, not as proof of current practising licence. Thus, even if the seal bears a previous year’s date, it continues to fulfil its core evidentiary function: identifying the author as a bona fide legal practitioner. It’s my y respectful submission that an expired seal does not (and cannot) render a legal document void.

*VERIFICATION: STATUS VS. CURRENT PRACTISING RIGHT*

If a third party seeks to verify whether the author of a legal document is a lawyer, the NBA seal suffices as conclusive evidence that the person is a lawyer. If, however, the concern is whether the lawyer holds a current practising licence, the correct reference is not the seal but the BPF receipt or the Bar Practising Certificate for that year. The NBA’s internal policy that one must first pay the BPF before obtaining the seal is, I submit, an administrative convenience (a revenue and compliance mechanism) not a statutory requirement. Accordingly, a lawyer’s qualification and authenticity cannot be impugned merely because the seal used bears a previous year’s mark.

*EVIDENTIAL VS. SUBSTANTIVE DEFECTS*

Failure to affix an NBA seal may raise an evidential question, that is, whether the document indeed emanated from a lawyer. But once a genuine seal (even if expired) is affixed, that evidential gap is cured. It is not a substantive defect that nullifies the document. The Court of Appeal’s position makes this clear: the seal’s function is evidentiary, not jurisdictional. It confirms identity and authorship, not the subsistence of a practising licence.

*ON PROFESSIONALISM AND COLLEGIAL COURTESY*

Professional courtesy and mutual respect are hallmarks of the legal profession. Publicly questioning a colleague’s professional status or the validity of his work product over an expired seal (especially without alleging forgery or misrepresentation) is inconsistent with both the spirit of collegiality and the dictates of fairness. As a lawyer has noted, one may, as a matter of prudence, reissue a fresh letter bearing a current seal to avoid unnecessary debate. However, the absence of a current seal does not, in law, invalidate the earlier document. In this context, the action of the OAU Director of Legal Services (querying Hon. Nnadi’s letter on such a tenuous basis) appears legally misconceived, professionally avoidable, and administratively unnecessary. A simple, courteous request for confirmation of current practising status (via BPF receipt or practising certificate) would have sufficed.

*QUALIFICATION VS. LICENCE: THE LEGAL FOUNDATION*

A look at the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), particularly Sections 2, 22, and 24, reveals the distinction between being qualified to practise and being licensed to practise in a given year. Qualification arises once a person is called to the Bar and enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. Licence to practise arises upon payment of the Annual Bar Practising Fee (BPF) for the relevant year. The NBA seal confirms the former; the BPF receipt confirms the latter. They are not interchangeable and serve distinct legal purposes.

*CONCLUSION*

The law and logic are both clear: (a). The NBA seal authenticates identity and qualification as a lawyer; the BPF confers the right to practise for the year; (b). The use of an expired NBA seal does not invalidate any legal document, as firmly established by the Court of Appeal in Emechebe v. Ceto Int’l and CBN v. Ekpo; (c). Rule 10 of the RPC 2023 does not require that the seal must correspond to the current practising year; (d). The OAU Director’s objection to Hon. Nnadi’s pre-action notice on the basis of a 2024 seal is, with respect, misconceived, unfounded, and professionally uncharitable. If OAU wished to verify Hon. Nnadi’s current practising status, the appropriate approach was simply to request his 2025 BPF receipt or Practising Certificate, not to impugn his status or the validity of his pre-action notice. The better view (legally, ethically, and practically) is that an expired NBA seal does not invalidate a document, whether a court process, a legal opinion, or a pre-action notice.

Respectfully submitted,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Law Teacher, Legal Practitioner, and Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (TRM).
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
www.therealityministry.ngo.
(07 October 2025)

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

During the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) Annual General Meeting (NBA-AGM) in Enugu at the close of the 2025 Annual General Conference (NBA-AGC), the NBA President outlined what he considered to be the major achievements of his administration in the past year. [See: “Port Harcourt to Host 2026 NBA-AGC; NBA-AGM Adopts Constitutional Amendments, Strengthens Governance and Access to Justice” TheNigeriaLawyer, 30 August 2025].

After going through the NBA blog site, I have drafted a fair summary of the “achievements” of the current NBA leadership in the past one year, as posted by the NBA itself, thus:

“The NBA under its recent leadership recorded notable strides across multiple fronts. In the area of innovation and digitization, it launched the Digital Annual Practice License, digitized the Letter of Good Standing, and resolved delays in the production and distribution of the NBA stamp and seal, which are now promptly processed. On professional development and standards, the Institute of Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) was repositioned with a mandatory CPD regime, and the NBA NEC Portal was created for registration, record-keeping, and communication. In advocacy and defence of the rule of law, the Association opposed unconstitutional removals of elected officials in Rivers and Benue States, defended judicial independence, condemned abuses of citizens by security agencies, and relocated the NBA Annual General Conference to Enugu as a democratic stand. It also launched the Joseph Ottey Pro Bono Scheme, established the National Litigation Committee, and intervened in matters of justice delivery, access to courts, and citizens’ rights. On expanding partnerships, the NBA forged collaborations with global law societies, regional bar associations, human rights organizations, as well as local civil society groups, state branches, and governance institutions. To strengthen NBA governance, constitutional amendments were adopted to enhance accountability, transparency, and institutional growth. Among other notable achievements were the empowerment of young lawyers through tailored mentorship, funding, and NBA-YLF initiatives; the expansion of welfare schemes including health insurance and emergency relief; sustained public interest advocacy against arbitrary arrests, election malpractice, and anti-democratic laws; capacity-building workshops on digital law, cybercrime, arbitration, and human rights litigation; and impactful community service by branches through legal aid clinics, prison decongestion programmes, and pro bono outreach.” [See: “One Year of Bold Reforms and Shared Progress: NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, Reports Milestone Achievements at Annual General Meeting in Enugu” (NBA Blog, 31 August 2025)].

At first glance, the list of accomplishments may appear weighty. However, when weighed against the grave realities confronting Nigerian lawyers and the justice sector, the claims demand closer scrutiny. This is not to dismiss genuine efforts made by the leadership, but to ask the hard, necessary questions: do these achievements truly align with the NBA’s constitutional objectives and the pressing needs of the Nigerian lawyer?

CRITICAL QUESTIONS NBA LEADERSHIP MUST ANSWER

(1). *Welfare and Economic Empowerment:* Which of the listed achievements tangibly improves the economic advancement of Nigerian lawyers? In a profession where many young lawyers earn as little as ₦20,000 monthly, where is the evidence of structured welfare programmes, minimum wage enforcement, or robust empowerment schemes? Recall that the NBA once passed a resolution on “minimum wage for lawyers.” What has become of it? Other professions (medicine, engineering, accountancy) have mechanisms protecting minimum professional earnings. Why has the NBA allowed its members to be so exploited without implementing its own resolutions?

(2). Justice Delivery and Court Efficiency:
Which of the achievements contributes or will contribute to speedy dispensation of justice? Nigerian courts are crippled by avoidable delays, infrastructural decay, archaic systems and operations and congestion. Yet, we hear little of NBA-led initiatives engaging Chief Judges, Attorneys-General, and Legislatures on judicial reforms to tackle adjournment culture, vacancies on the Bench, allegations of corruption, or technology-driven case management. Without systemic reform, justice in Nigeria remains justice denied.

3. Expanding Practice Space and Employment: With tens of thousands of lawyers unemployed or underemployed, which of the “achievements” has the potential to lead to efforts towards expanding the law practice space to create job opportunities? Compare this to initiatives in other jurisdictions where bar associations lobby for new practice frontiers: compliance, technology law, ADR, cross-border legal work, and community-based legal services.

(4). Consider also the Nigeria Police Act 2020 (s. 66(3)), which mandates the employment and posting of lawyers to police stations to monitor human rights observance. Has the NBA meaningfully engaged the Inspector-General of Police, the Attorney General, the President or the National Assembly on implementation of this provision? If implemented, thousands of jobs would instantly open for lawyers.

(5). Grassroots Legal Presence: Nigeria remains the only country where local governments operate without legal departments, unlike their counterparts in health, education, works, and agriculture. Has the NBA proposed or lobbied for legislation mandating legal departments in all 774 LGAs? Such a move would not only enhance governance but create employment for lawyers nationwide.

(6). Discipline and Professional Standards: What of the charge-and-bail menace, a long-standing stain on the Bar’s image? Has the NBA devised strategies to identify root causes and address them? Instead, the menace festers, further eroding public confidence in the legal profession.

(7). Legal Education and Institutional Decay: Our law school campuses and law faculties operate under deplorable conditions (poor facilities and inadequate funding, among others). Our courtrooms remain dilapidated, lacking even basic infrastructure. Which of the NBA’s highlighted “achievements” addresses these foundational issues?

(8). Governance, Transparency, and NBA’s Credibility Crisis: Complaints of opaque finances, exclusionary decision-making, and factionalism have long haunted the NBA. The rank-and-file often perceive NBA activities as elite-driven, detached from the daily struggles of the average practitioner. Osigwe’s scorecard would have been the perfect opportunity to demonstrate a new culture of accountability and inclusivity. Instead, what we saw were broad claims of “institutional reforms” without specifics, reports of programs without clear impact metrics, and no transparent audit of the Association’s finances.

(9). Public Sector Lawyers and NYSC Anomaly: Lawyers in public service (LOAN members) are among the most poorly remunerated and the most shabbily treated in the country, yet no NBA policy thrust addresses this injustice. Likewise, the NYSC reportedly continues to post lawyers to teach secondary school subjects, wasting their professional training. Where is the NBA’s voice on this?

(10). Security, Human Rights, and National Engagement: Lawyers do not operate in isolation. Across Nigeria, insecurity continues to claim lives, sometimes even of members of the Bar. The civic space shrinks daily, with journalists, activists, and citizens facing harassment for exercising constitutional rights. In such an environment, the Bar ought to stand as a fearless vanguard of liberty. Instead, what we hear are ceremonial statements rather than sustained, bold advocacy against human rights violations, insecurity, and bad governance.

(11). Technology and Global Competitiveness: The world is moving rapidly toward artificial intelligence, digital law, and cross-border commercial practice. What has the NBA done to contribute to preparing Nigerian lawyers for global competitiveness? Without a deliberate agenda for tech-driven practice and international market access, Nigerian lawyers risk being left behind while foreign firms and tech platforms dominate new practice frontiers.

(12). Regulatory Capture and Institutional Weakness: The NBA’s relationship with regulatory institutions such as the Body of Benchers, the Council of Legal Education, and the LPDC often appears weak and reactive. Has the NBA articulated a coherent strategy to push reforms within these bodies to strengthen ethics, modernise professional discipline, and ensure alignment with lawyers’ welfare?

A DANGEROUS PATTERN OF TRIVIALISATION

When one juxtaposes the NBA President’s list of “achievements” with the systemic crises outlined above, among others, the dissonance becomes clear. It is the same troubling pattern we saw earlier in the NBA Abeokuta Branch’s one-month scorecard, where distribution of ID cards, outer-wall renovation, and discounted cinema tickets were hailed as “milestones.”

Achievements! Achievements!! Achievements!!! One may ask: Are we now content to elevate routine administrative tasks or cosmetic gestures as monumental successes, while ignoring existential threats to the legal profession? This trivialisation is not merely cosmetic; it signals a crisis of vision and misplaced priorities. Instead of being the watchdog of justice and defender of lawyers’ welfare, the NBA risks becoming a ceremonial association focused on self-congratulation and empty optics.

NBA’S FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTIVES AS THE YARDSTICK

The NBA Constitution (2015), in section 3, sets out the Association’s objectives: Maintaining and defending the integrity and independence of the Judiciary; Improving the administration of justice; Promoting legal education and continuing professional development; Providing legal aid and access to justice;
Advocating law reform; Promoting the welfare and economic advancement of NBA members, among others. Measured against these yardsticks, how much of the NBA’s one-year “scorecard” truly qualifies as achievement?

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current NBA leadership came into office with great promise. Today, however, we witness a troubling drift into superficiality. Unless there is ayurgent reorientation, the Bar risks losing its soul on the altar of misplaced priorities, directionlessness, and lack of pragmatism. I write not out of malice but out of deep concern. The Bar is too important to Nigeria’s democracy and justice system to be trivialised. It is time for the NBA to rise from self-congratulation and refocus on matters of substance, relevance, and impact. For President Afam Osigwe SAN, the first year has been one of rhetoric and routine. The remaining years present a unique opportunity for course correction: to embrace boldness, prioritise substance over ceremony, and align every “achievement” with the real crises facing Nigerian lawyers and the justice system. Anything short of this will reduce his tenure to another missed opportunity in a long chain of Bar-leadership disappointments. The Bar, and indeed the nation, deserve more. For my part, I cannot sit on the sidelines while the profession drifts. We must speak up (firmly but respectfully) before the decline becomes irreversible.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
08021365545 | mails@therealityministry.ngo | udems@therealityministry.ngo | www.therealityministry.ngo

 

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

The President,
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA),
NBA House, Plot 1101. Mohammadu Buhari Way, Central Business District, Abuja F.C.T.. Nigeria.

Dear esteemed President, Sir,

*Recommendations On Implementation of Section 66(3) of the Nigeria Police Act 2020 In Light of The 2025 Police Recruitment Exercise*

With respectful regards, Sir, I write to humbly call your kind attention to an urgent matter of national importance, professional pride, and institutional reform: the need for the implementation of Section 66(3) of the Nigeria Police Act 2020.

The Nigeria Police Force has recently announced its 2025 nationwide recruitment exercise, slated to commence on 22 September 2025. Beyond the routine of police recruitment, this presents a historic opportunity for the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to lead a patriotic intervention by demanding faithful enforcement of Section 66(3). For clarity, the section provides: “There shall be assigned to every police station at least one police officer: (a) who is a legal practitioner in accordance with the Legal Practitioners Act; and (b) whose responsibility is to promote human rights compliance by officers of the division.”

The legislative intent is unambiguous: every police station in Nigeria should have a lawyer-officer (I have chosen to describe such lawyers as Divisional Human Rights Officer: DHRO) whose exclusive role is to promote and safeguard human rights, ensure legal compliance, and strengthen justice delivery. Sadly, since the passage of the Act in 2020, this noble provision has remained dormant. Now that the Police are set to recruit massively, the NBA under your leadership must engage key stakeholders (including the Presidency, the Inspector-General of Police, the Police Service Commission, the Minister of Police Affairs, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Body of Benchers, BOSAN, among others), through constructive engagement, diplomatic dialogue and understanding to demand from relevant authorities that, say, not less than 20 percent of new recruits into the Force every year be lawyers who would in turn be posted to police stations with befitting offices created for them accordingly, thereby aligning recruitment with Section 66(3).

WHY IMPLEMENTATION IS IMPERATIVE: 15 KEY BENEFITS

Based on research, policy analysis, and my earlier published commentary, at least fifteen distinct benefits will flow from implementing Section 66(3):

1. Dedicated Human Rights Oversight: Lawyers deployed as DHROs will have a clear statutory mandate to supervise and promote human rights observance within their stations.

2. Institutional Legal Sections in Police Stations: Implementation would mark the beginning of permanent legal departments in every police station, akin to the DPO, DCO, and DTO structure, thereby embedding legality into everyday policing.

3. Accountability Mechanism: The NBA and legal profession would now have “their own” in each station: lawyer-officers who, though members of the Force, remain bound by professional ethics and disciplinary frameworks.

4. Reduced Frictions Between Police and Lawyers: Lawyers visiting stations would interact first with in-house colleagues, thereby reducing incidents of harassment, brutalization, and unprofessional clashes.

5. Curtailment of Frivolous Criminal Charges: Many frivolous and baseless charges that currently flood magistrates’ courts would be screened or blocked by DHROs collaborating with the DPO. This will contribute to reducing congestion of courts and correctional centres.

6. Improved Drafting of Criminal Charges: With legally trained officers drafting or reviewing charges at the level of the Police Station, technical defects (duplicity, ambiguity, misjoinder among other avoidable defects, confusions and legal blunders) will reduce drastically, ensuring smoother prosecutions.

7. Capacity Building for Policemen: Regular interaction between DHROs and traditional police officers in each police station would raise awareness, enlighten, and promote better compliance with human rights standards but traditional police men and women in that police station.

8. Enhanced Feedback to NBA: DHROs could provide regular reports to NBA branches on rights observance within police stations, serving as liaisons and bridges between the Bar and the Force.

9. Improved NBA-Police Collaboration: With institutionalized legal presence in stations, partnerships between NBA branches and divisional commands will improve, reducing mistrust and building mutual respect which is essential for smoother justice administration.

10. Employment Opportunities for Lawyers: Many unemployed lawyers would be absorbed into the Police, not as gun-bearing operatives but as legal/human rights officers, strengthening the justice system while easing unemployment.

11. In-House Legal Advisers: Lawyers posted to Police stations as DHROs would serve as ready legal advisers to the DPOs, DCOs, DTOs and other police officers, reducing scandals and missteps, especially those arising from rights violations and overall policing.

12. Alignment with International Standards: Globally, civilized jurisdictions have legal sections embedded in police divisions. Nigeria cannot lag behind if it seeks to modernize its policing architecture.

13. Improved Prosecution in Lower Courts: With DHROs prosecuting in magistrates’ courts (instead of lay policemen as we currently have), quality of prosecution will rise, defence lawyers will be more challenged, and justice delivery will be better served.

14. Special-Purpose Role Different from O/C Legal: Unlike the current O/C Legal officers (who are primarily traditional policemen posted to command headquarters), DHROs will serve across all stations nationwide, with a special statutory mandate focused on rights and legal compliance.

15. Enhanced Personal Accountability: Because lawyer-officers are answerable to both Police disciplinary bodies and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, dereliction of duty would attract real consequences, strengthening compliance.

THE NBA’S STRATEGIC ROLE

Dear President, the NBA must not let this opportunity slip. By engaging government and police stakeholders to demand implementation of Section 66(3), your administration would be seen to have done more to (i). Promote human rights and reduce abuses across police stations; (ii). Strengthen the dignity of our profession by positioning lawyers as central actors in law enforcement; (iii). Contribute directly to decongesting courts and prisons; and (iv). Enhance Nigeria’s international reputation in rights protection and democratic policing.

This is not aspirational; it is statutory. The NBA should therefore insist that at least 20 percent of all annual Police recruits must be lawyers, to progressively meet the requirement that each police station should have a lawyer-officer.

CONCLUSION

Dear Mr President, sir, history beckons. The 2025 recruitment exercise is the long-awaited gateway to bring Section 66(3) to life. If we act now, we would be using one provision to address multiple systemic problems in policing, justice, and human rights protection. If we fail, it may take long before the chance reappears. I respectfully urge you to convene constructive, diplomatic consultations and engagement with all stakeholders and lead this cause on behalf of our Association and the Nigerian people. Dear Mr. President, Sir, implementing Section 66(3) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020 is far more than merely recruiting more lawyers into the Nigeria Police Force. Its essence transcends numbers or routine enlistment. Lawyers engaged and deployed under this provision are not to be absorbed into the conventional duties of police officers, such as joining investigation teams, bearing arms, manning patrols or checkpoints, or performing other traditional policing functions. Rather, their presence at police stations nationwide is intended to serve a distinct and higher purpose: *to oversee, guide, and safeguard the observance of human rights by police personnel in their interactions with suspects, detainees, and members of the public.* In this way, Sir, the implementation of Section 66(3) is conceived as a deliberate, special-purpose mechanism to entrench a culture of accountability, legality, and dignity within policing. It is, therefore, a transformative human-rights project designed to align Nigeria’s policing system with international best practices and contemporary 21st-century standards, while also bridging the trust deficit between law enforcement and the citizenry.

Rest assured of my highest professional esteem and warmest regards.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
www.therealityministry.ngo
(01 September 2025)

CC:

1). The Chairman, Body of Benchers

2). The Chairman, General Council of the Bar

3). The Chairman, BOSAN

 

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

Over the last fourteen years, and even before then, the Nigerian Bar Association’s Annual General Conference (NBA-AGC) has hosted an impressive array of distinguished personalities delivering keynote addresses: from Nobel Laureates to heads of state, eminent jurists, global business leaders, and celebrated thought-leaders. Each address has been memorable in its own right. A quick look at the record tells the story:

1. *NBA-AGC 2012:* Keynote Address by Professor Wole Soyinka.

2. *NBA-AGC 2013:* Keynote Speaker was Professor Jonas Isawa Elaigwu, Professor of Law.

3. *NBA-AGC 2014:* Keynote Speaker was Dr. George Amale Kwanashie, distinguished historian.

4. *NBA-AGC 2015:* Keynote Address by Dr. Willy Munyoki Mutunga, Chief Justice of Kenya.

5. *NBA-AGC 2016:* Keynote Address by Mr. Johnston Busingye, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Rwanda.

6. *NBA-AGC 2017:* Keynote Address by Professor Yemi Osinbajo, SAN, Acting President of Nigeria.

7. *NBA-AGC 2018:* Keynote Address by H.E. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana.

8. *NBA-AGC 2019:* Keynote Address by Horacio Bernardes, then President of the IBA.

9. *NBA-AGC 2020:* Keynote Address by Hon. Dame Linda Dobbs, Judicial Institute for Africa.

10. *NBA-AGC 2021:* Keynote Address by Dr. Matthew Hassan Kukah.

11. *NBA-AGC 2022:* Keynote Address by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, acclaimed author.

12. *NBA-AGC 2023:* Keynote Address by Tony O. Elumelu, Chairman of UBA Group.

13. *NBA-AGC 2024:* Keynote Address by Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, GCON, WTO Director-General.

14. *NBA-AGC 2025*: Keynote Address by Julius Malema, South African political <leader.https://youtu.be/sjq8hHRezh4?si=bFVp9xQ7McasgdwV>

Indeed, the speeches have been powerful, eloquent, and often inspiring. This year’s keynote by Julius Malema was no exception: it was electrifying, provocative, and memorable. Yet, a sober question must be asked: Beyond the oratory, how much do these keynote addresses truly contribute to solving the practical, everyday challenges of the Nigerian legal profession?

*PRESSING PROFESSIONAL QUESTIONS LEFT UNANSWERED*

If a keynote address, however moving, does not help the NBA and its members confront urgent systemic problems, then the exercise risks being more ceremonial than substantive. Consider just a few of the challenges:

1. *JUSTICE DELIVERY:* Our courts remain congested; cases drag for decades. Did Malema’s keynote offer ideas to unclog procedural bottlenecks or improve judicial efficiency and effectiveness?

2. *EMPLOYMENT FOR LAWYERS:* Thousands of young Nigerian lawyers remain underemployed. Did the keynote outline strategies to expand the law practice’s employment space?

3. *POLICE PROSECUTIONS:* Lay police officers still prosecute criminal cases in Nigeria, daily. Did the keynote galvanise NBA action to reclaim this legal professional role for lawyers?

4. *IMPLEMENTATION OF Section 66(3), Police Act 2020:* Enforcing this provision would create thousands of legal jobs. Was this priority highlighted?

5. *LEGAL DEPARTMENTS IN LGAS:* Every local government undertakes contracts and governance with legal implications, yet few have in-house lawyers. Did the keynote encourage NBA advocacy in this regard?

6. *LEGAL UNITS IN MDAS:* Many government agencies still operate without Legal Departments and in-house counsel. Did Malema’s speech inspire action to address this costly gap?

7. *LEGISLATIVE ACTIVISM:* A vibrant Bar should push bills and subsidiary legislation that would directly improve lawyers’ welfare and economic advancement: from mandatory legal representation in land deals to incentives for legal start-ups, to justice reform to welfare of lawyers and the legal profession. Did the keynote stimulate such initiatives?

8. *JUSTICE SECTOR REFORMS:* From technology-driven courts to specialised tribunals, Nigeria needs urgent systemic reforms. Did the keynote push the NBA to leverage its influence here?

9. *LAWYERS IN PUBLIC SERVICE:* Unlike doctors or engineers, government-employed lawyers often suffer poor working conditions. Did the keynote address provide any roadmap for NBA advocacy on this front?

If the answer to these questions is “no,” then the invitation of Julius Malema, however well-intentioned, might not have served the best interests of the Nigerian Bar Association.

*THE CORE DUTY OF THE NBA*

The NBA-AGC should not merely be a platform for captivating speeches. It should be a forum to debate, adopt, and implement resolutions that improve the practice of law, the welfare of lawyers, and the efficiency of the justice system. While it is commendable for the NBA to lend its voice to wider societal issues, defending democracy, speaking truth to power, and championing human rights, this must never overshadow its primary obligation to advance the professional and economic interests of Nigerian lawyers.

Malema’s presence underscored one key truth: rhetoric inspires, but reform transforms. It is time for the NBA to insist that keynote addresses do more than dazzle; they must directly drive policy, advocacy, and reform in the legal profession.

In due course, I shall return to analyse this matter in fuller detail.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
📞 08021365545 |
✉️ udems@therealityministry.ngo.
wwww.therealityministry.ngo
(25 August 2025)

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

On 21 August 2025, a news report emerged with the headline: *“Release Osun LG Funds, You Have No Power To Withhold Allocations – NBA To Tinubu.”* The statement by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) urging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to release Osun State’s allegedly withheld local government funds immediately sparked mixed reactions. At first glance, the intervention might appear noble. But on closer scrutiny, it exposes a deeper, recurring problem that has plagued the NBA for years: its penchant for chasing shadows, indulging in political grandstanding, and issuing statements that achieve little or nothing, while neglecting the pressing realities confronting its own members.

*Abdication of Core Responsibility*

The NBA is, first and foremost, a professional association. Its raison d’être is the promotion of the welfare, security, professional advancement, and economic empowerment of Nigerian lawyers. It was not established to serve as a political pressure group or a general-purpose commentator on every national issue. Unfortunately, successive NBA leaderships have consistently abdicated this core responsibility, preferring instead to chase relevance in political discourse. This is not a new concern. In my essay *“Abdication of Duty: How NBA Leaderships Chase After Shadows to the Detriment of the Security, Welfare and Economic Advancement of the Legal Profession and Its Members”* (2021), I highlighted this same tragic pattern: leaderships, past and present, expend more energy on issuing press statements and dabbling in external matters while leaving their own members to languish in frustration, poverty, unemployment, and professional stagnation. Even earlier, in *“Bar Associations and the Sad Story of Nigerian Lawyers”* (2017), I observed that the tragedy of the Nigerian legal profession is closely tied to this attitude of neglect.

The Osun funds matter provides a clear example. Has the Osun State Government itself exhausted all constitutional and judicial avenues to enforce its rights? Does it lack the machinery or resources to defend its own interests? Why should the NBA, a professional body, rush in as a crusader to fight another’s battle while its own constituency is collapsing? In advocacy, it is trite that one cannot help someone who has refused to help himself. Worse still, this choice of battle raises a disturbing question: between the withholding of Osun’s allocations and the fact that more than seventy percent of Nigerian lawyers, particularly young lawyers, are unemployed, underemployed, frustrated, and disillusioned, which is the more pressing concern for the NBA? Why should the Association rise swiftly in defence of a state government that has not acted decisively for itself, while ignoring the existential plight of its own members?

*NBA’S ENDLESS PRESS RELEASES: SOUND WITHOUT SUBSTANCE*

The NBA knows what to do if it genuinely intends to see the funds released. It could initiate or support constitutional litigation, file amicus briefs, or create institutional pressure within the bounds of law. Instead, it chooses the convenient route: issuing yet another press statement, only to move on to the next issue the following week. Over the past year, this has become the NBA’s trademark: thriving on statements, communiqués, and press releases, while recording very little in terms of tangible outcomes. Indeed, the Association increasingly resembles a body more interested in appearances than in results, more concerned with grabbing headlines than with delivering real change. The bitter irony is that while the NBA projects itself as a crusader for national governance, the very constituency that sustains it, lawyers paying dues, is languishing in despair.

*THE CONTRAST: NBA VERSUS NMA*

The striking difference between the NBA and its counterpart, the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), underscores the tragedy.

1. *Focus on Members’ Welfare:* The NMA dedicates over 99% of its initiatives to the welfare, professional growth, and working conditions of doctors and other healthcare providers. In contrast, the NBA devotes most of its energy to external political commentary, neglecting its members’ needs.

2. *Relevance of Conference Themes:* The NMA’s 2025 Annual Conference bore the theme: *“The Universal Applicability of Care Standards for Patients and the Wellbeing of Healthcare Providers.”* This theme reflects a clear inward focus: how to improve professional standards while safeguarding doctors’ welfare. Meanwhile, the NBA paraded the vague and uninspiring theme: *“Stand Out, Stand Tall.”* Devoid of professional direction, the theme reflects the NBA’s current identity crisis and lack of purpose.

3. *Programme Content:* At the NMA Conference, more than 90% of sessions addressed professional practice, medical ethics, members’ welfare, and health sector challenges. At the NBA’s own conference, more than 80% of sessions focused on matters with little or no relevance to the practice of law, lawyers’ welfare, or economic empowerment.

4. *Advocacy Priorities:* When the NMA advocates for reforms, it does so by tying them to improvements in healthcare delivery and the welfare of healthcare providers. The NBA, however, too often comments on national politics without linking such interventions to the economic survival or professional dignity of lawyers.

5. *Professional Development Initiatives:* The NMA consistently pushes for better working conditions, improved remuneration, and sustainable professional support for doctors. By contrast, the NBA has failed to design comparable programmes for lawyers, leaving many struggling practitioners without institutional support in a shrinking legal services market.

6. *Responsibility to Members:* The NMA understands that charity begins at home. Its leadership makes clear that its first duty is to its members. The NBA leadership, on the other hand, behaves as though charity begins abroad, expending its limited energy on political commentary while its members languish in neglect.

This contrast is not coincidental. It is a reflection of two professional bodies with two different senses of duty; one focused on its members, the other distracted by external grandstanding.

*A SAD STORY REPEATED*

The Nigerian legal profession, once respected and influential, is now struggling for relevance. Lawyers roam the streets in search of nonexistent jobs. Many law firms are shutting their doors. Young lawyers are disillusioned and leaving the profession altogether. Yet, the NBA’s attention is elsewhere. This is the same sad story I chronicled in 2017 and 2021, and it continues unabated in 2025. Other professional associations are evolving strategies to shield their members from hardship, but the NBA is content to make headlines. If nothing changes, the Association risks becoming a body famous for “sound and fury, signifying little,” while its members, who sustain it with dues and loyalty, sink deeper into neglect and despair.

*THE WAY FORWARD*

The NBA must urgently reorder its priorities. Its leadership must return to first principles; recognizing that its primary duty is to lawyers, not to state governments or political actors.

*CONCRETE STEPS ARE NEEDED:*

(1). Design policies to tackle unemployment and underemployment among lawyers, particularly young practitioners.

(2). Establish practical support systems such as mentorship programmes, practice start-up grants, and realistic and free continuing professional development (CPD) tailored to practice realities.

(3). Advocate for better and impregnable remuneration standards, learning from how the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria has consistently intervened to secure doctors’ welfare.

(4). Refocus annual conferences on substantive issues: legal education, law practice, welfare and economic advancement of lawyers in Nigeria, improved access to justice, advocacy and programmes for accelerated justice delivery, practice management, regulatory reforms, and lawyers’ dignity, etc, rather than vague motivational slogans.

(5). Tie every intervention on national issues back to its impact on lawyers’ welfare and the legal profession. If NBA must intervene in governance, it should always ask: how does this affect our members?

Until this reorientation happens, the NBA will remain guilty of abdication of duty, and its leaders will continue to be perceived as out of touch with the everyday realities of Nigerian lawyers.

*CONCLUSION*

The Osun local government funds saga is not, in itself, unimportant. But it is not the NBA’s most pressing mandate. The Association was not created to act as a substitute government for states unwilling to fight their own battles. Its sacred duty is to its members: their welfare, empowerment, and professional survival. The Nigerian Medical Association has shown what focus looks like. The NBA must take a cue: *charity begins at home.* If the NBA truly wishes to “stand tall,” it must first stand with its own members. Until then, its endless press statements will remain little more than public posturing, sound without substance, shadows without substance, while the real crises of Nigerian lawyers fester unattended.

Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue, Udems,
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (TRM)
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
www.therealityministry.ngo
(22 August 2025)

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

Memory Verse:

It is one thing to quote the law; it is another to understand the policy and jurisprudence underpinning its application.

1. *Clarifying the Misapprehensions:* I have read with utmost respect and interest a recent piece by my respected learned friend, Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, titled *“Only The Chief Registrar Of The S’Court Is Legally Empowered To Collect Annual Practising Fees And Issue Practice Licences To Lawyers – Not The NBA”.* While I commend his devotion to interrogating legal practices with a critical eye, I respectfully submit that the conclusion drawn in that article is based on a fundamental misreading of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), and a misunderstanding of the longstanding, lawful, and efficient administrative cooperation between the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court in the collection of Bar Practising Fees (BPF).

2. The position taken by Amb Jimoh is not new. A similar argument was raised in 2019 by Mr. Steve Sun, and I had addressed the matter exhaustively in my article titled *“A Dispassionate Evaluation of Steve Sun’s Censorious Protestations Against the Début of NBA’s Online Portal for Bar Practising Fees,”* published on Courtroom Mail. That rebuttal, founded on sound statutory interpretation and practical illustrations, remains instructive and relevant in today’s renewed conversation.

3. *Legal Foundation Of Nba ‘S Action:* [See: Sections 8 and 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, LFN, 2004]. The cornerstone of legal regulation for the Bar Practicing Fee lies in Section 8(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act which provides: “A person shall not be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor in Nigeria unless there is in respect of him in force a practicing certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, and unless he has paid a practicing fee as may be prescribed by rules made under this section.” While this provision clearly vests the power to issue practising certificates in the Chief Registrar, it does not expressly or impliedly preclude administrative collaboration with the NBA in the collection of practising fees. In fact, Section 8(4) of the same Act enables the Attorney-General of the Federation, with the concurrence of the General Council of the Bar, to make rules regulating the payment of fees. This statutory opening has been operationalised to accommodate the NBA’s logistical and technological support in the process. Furthermore, Section 11(1)(c) of the LPA authorizes the General Council of the Bar, a body chaired by the Attorney-General and comprising NBA leadership, to “make rules for regulating the privileges and duties of legal practitioners in Nigeria.” Thus, role of the NBA in BPF collection is not a legal intrusion but a statutory partnership fully within the spirit and letter of the law.

4. *The NBA’s Constitutional and Institutional Mandate:* The Constitution of the NBA affirms in Section 3(1) that the NBA is “the umbrella body of all lawyers admitted to practice law in Nigeria.” As the central professional organization of the legal profession in Nigeria, the NBA carries both the burden and duty to promote regulatory clarity, operational efficiency, and professional accountability. Its functions include regulating member welfare, ethics, and compliance, including support in collecting BPFs, ensuring timely remittances, and enabling access to practicing certificates. To challenge this supportive role is to weaken a system that has served the Bar effectively for over two decades.

5. *Longstanding Practice, Estoppel, and De Facto Authority:* The administrative cooperation between the NBA and the Chief Registrar is not a recent innovation. Since the early 2000s, both bodies have operated a collaborative model in which the NBA serves as the front-end collector, now via a centralized digital platform, while remittance, record validation, and issuance of certificates remain the responsibility of the Chief Registrar. The Supreme Court of Nigeria confirmed in *A.G. ABIA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION* (2006) LPELR-603(SC), “Where a practice, even if not expressly provided by statute, is followed consistently by all concerned, and is not contrary to law, it may acquire binding force by estoppel or administrative convention.” It follows that this settled convention, acquiesced to by the Bench, Bar, and the Attorney-General, has become part of Nigeria’s legal administrative architecture. Likewise, the Court of Appeal in *UNILORIN V. ADESINA* (2010) LPELR-8986(CA) held that “It is not the form of power but its lawful exercise that the courts are concerned with.” Hence, the NBA’s role, exercised in good faith under mutual administrative arrangements, is legitimate under principles of de facto authority.

6. *MISAPPLICATION OF OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS:* Our learned friend cites the landmark case of OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 to argue that the NBA’s role is ultra vires. With respect, his reliance on that case is misplaced. Olaniyan was a case of unilateral administrative overreach: the unlawful termination of tenured academic appointments in contravention of governing statutes. In contrast, the NBA’s participation in BPF collection is based on express consent, mutual recognition, and sustained collaborative practice with the Chief Registrar and the AGF. The doctrine of ultra vires applies only where there is no statutory basis, express or implied, for the administrative action. Here, we have both legal authorization (via LPA and Bar Council rules) and decades of administrative cooperation.

7. *PRACTICAL REALITIES – WHY THE NBA PORTAL IS NECESSARY:* Let us picture the alternative: in the absence of the NBA’s digital portal, every legal practitioner in Nigeria would need to either travel to Abuja to make BPF payments manually at the Supreme Court and collect a receipt from the Supreme Court or pay at a bank and wait for a receipt to be issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. That would lead to delays, inefficiencies, missing records, and increased operational costs. The NBA’s portal is not a power-grab. It is a technological solution adopted to (a). Facilitate ease of payment nationwide; (b). Maintain verifiable and centralized records; (c). Enable instant issuance of receipts; and (d). Ensure reconciliation with the Supreme Court’s registry. The portal remains linked to the Chief Registrar’s database, with final authority over collection of practicing certificates still residing with the Court. This is the ideal model of administrative convenience and innovation. Thus, the NBA portal is merely a medium through which the BPF is paid to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Thus NBA doesn’t collect BPF but facilitates collection of the BPF by the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

8. *A Word of Caution and Counsel:* This is not the first time objections have been raised against the NBA’s digitalization of BPF payment. It is important, however, that we do not let misinterpretations of law obscure long-accepted institutional arrangements that have enhanced transparency, accountability, and professionalism in our practice. To roll back this cooperation would not only plunge the Bar into administrative regression, it would unravel the significant gains made in modernizing legal practice in Nigeria. As I concluded in my article on this subject in 2019, “A deviation from this pragmatic cooperation between the NBA and the Supreme Court would not only breed confusion but also unravel the administrative gains we have achieved in regulating our profession in a digital age.”

9. *The NBA Is The Principal Beneficiary of the BPF:* In my 2019 article, referenced above, I had argued that the claim that the NBA lacks the authority to operate an online portal for Bar Practising Fees (BPF), and that BPF is payable solely to the Supreme Court, is mistaken. While Section 8(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) provides that BPF is paid to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Section 8(3)(c) clearly mandates that 90% of all BPF collected must be remitted to the NBA annually. This makes the NBA not a mere stakeholder, but the principal beneficiary of BPF, with an inherent interest and role in its administration. The correct position, therefore, is that BPF is paid to the NBA through the Registrar. The NBA’s use of a digital portal is simply an administrative mechanism to facilitate this process, not a usurpation of statutory powers. The law, long-standing practice, and administrative logic all affirm the NBA’s locus in BPF matters.

10. *The Law Meets Practical Reality:* To quote Lord Denning in *SEAFORD COURT ESTATES LTD V. ASHER* (1949) 2 KB 481, “Whenever a statute comes before a court, it is not to be construed as a mere grammatical exercise but must be interpreted in the light of practical reality.” The practical reality is that the NBA portal is a lawful, collaborative, and functional innovation, sustained by statute, guided by administrative law principles, and executed in full cooperation with the relevant authorities. To challenge it on hollow grounds is not to promote legal purity, but to sabotage administrative progress. Let the Bar be guided accordingly so as to not be misled.

Long live NBA!

Sylvester Udemezue
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM).
08109024556.
TheRealityMinister@Gmail.Com
(16 June 2025)

 

By Sylvester Udemezue

In the early hours of 20 May 2025, I came across a post on Twitter alleging that the Nigerian Bar Association’s National Executive Council (NBA-NEC) had passed a resolution to penalize any NBA member who publicly disagreed with official statements made by the NBA President.

As a committed advocate for the rule of law and constitutional freedoms, and the Proctor of the The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice, (a nonaligned, nonprofit public interest law advocacy group), I found the alleged resolution deeply concerning and wholly inconsistent with the noble ideals upon which the NBA was founded.

In immediate response, and driven by an unwavering commitment to the defence of free expression within our professional community, I authored and published an article titled: “Re: NBA-NEC’s Resolution to Reprimand NBA Members Who Publicly Oppose the NBA President’s Official Statements.”

The article, which was widely shared across social media platforms, expressed my strong objections to any move, real or perceived, that seeks to stifle dissent or curtail members’ constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, as provided under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

However, shortly after the article began to gain attention and circulation, I received a private message on WhatsApp from the NBA President himself. His message read:

“Good evening, Udems. No such resolution was passed. In fact, even though someone suggested that in passing, it was never discussed. Apparently, the person who made that post did so in grave error.”

To this, I respectfully responded:

“Good evening, our esteemed President and Learned Silk, sir. I shall write again shortly in light of this clarification from the horse’s mouth. Thank you immensely, Mr. President, Sir. Respectfully, Mr. Udems.”

Permit me to publicly commend and pour sincere encomiums on the President of the Nigerian Bar Association for this singular act of humble, transparent, and responsible leadership. It takes uncommon grace, maturity, and a genuine commitment to truth and service for a leader of his stature to personally reach out, without airs or hesitation, to clarify a matter of public concern. His action not only reflects strength of character but also exemplifies the kind of leadership the Bar and indeed the nation require: one grounded in humility, openness, and constructive engagement.

This clarification is timely, necessary, and highly commendable. It is important to set the record straight and assure members of the Bar and the general public that no such resolution was passed by the NBA-NEC. The strength of our profession lies not in silencing differing views but in fostering robust dialogue, principled disagreement, and unwavering fidelity to the rule of law.

I therefore urge us all, members of the NBA and concerned citizens alike, to remain vigilant but also measured in our responses. Let us always seek the facts and engage with respect, even when we must disagree. And as I always say, the rule of law must not just be a slogan; it must be our way of life, especially within the premier association of legal practitioners in Nigeria.

Long live NBA!

(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Proctor of the The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
08021365545.
TheRealityMinister@Gmail.Com
(20 May 2025)