ONLY THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE NBA CAN DIRECT THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE 2026 NBA NATIONAL OFFICERS’ ELECTION

NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION

NATIONAL SECRETARIAT: Plot 1102, Muhammed Buhari Way, Cadastral Zone A00, Central Business District, Abuja Nigerian Tel: +234 800 333 1111
www.nigerianbar.org.ng

July 7, 2026

Our attention has been drawn to a document which purports to be a Report
of a Sub-Committee and the comments of the Honourable Attorney General
which, amongst other things allegedly ordered

(a) the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar
Association and postponement of the election of National Officers,

(b) the termination of the appointment of the current service provider
because he is a sole proprietor and the appointment of a new service
provider,

(c) the setting up of a caretaker committee to conduct the elections of
national officers,

(d) the incorporation of NIN in the data of voters in the conduct of the NBA
Election.

(e) the “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution to take away universal
suffrage ETC.

The Nigerian Bar Association believes that the Honourable Attorney General
of the Federation could not issue the said directive as it is entirely
unconstitutional, ultra vires the powers of the Honourable Attorney General
of the Federation, and an attempt to bring the Nigerian Bar Association under
the control of the office of the Honourable Attorney General.

For the record, the Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body not under
the control of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation. By the
provisions of section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, the only time a body
distinct from the Nigerian Bar Association is empowered to interfere in the
activities of the Nigerian Bar Association is stated clearly therein and none of
the events have occurred as to entitle the Honourable Attorney General take
the position stated in the purported directive.

We are strengthened in our believe that the Honourable Attorney Geral could
not have given the purported directives when in fact the purported directives
are no different from the reliefs sought in the two Egbe Amofin Cases pending
at the High Court of Oyo State. Indeed the Honourable Attorney General
cannot grant reliefs sought in the two Egbe Amofin Suits in his capacity as a

NATIONAL OFFICERS:
Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN – President
Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara – General Secretary; Sebastine Anyia – 1st Vice-President; Mrs. Bolatumi Olasunbo Animashaun – 2nd Vice President; Zainab Aminu Garba – 3rd Vice-President;
Blessing Imo Udofa-Poromon – Treasurer; Nyada Auta – Welfare Secretary; Bridget Ijeoma Edokwe – Publicity Secretary;
Henry Barnabas Ehi – Assistant General Secretary; Ebiere Emmanuella Ekpese – Assistant Publicity Secretary
convener of mediation meeting or even as the Chief Law Officer of the
Federation. The Honourable Attorney General is at best a party/ mediator and
it is settled that a mediator does not give directives to the parties in a matter
in which he is a party.

All Past Presidents of the Nigerian Bar Association in attendance, to the
exclusion of Chief Wole Olanipekun, were of the view that the cases initiated
by Egbe Amofin are frivolous and should be withdrawn. It was therefore the
decision of the attendees of the Meeting that the Sub-Committee set up is to
ONLY liaise with the contending parties for the purpose of overseeing the
withdrawal of the actions. The Sub Committees was never empowered to
make any inquest as to the conduct of the President of the Nigerian Bar
Association to the extent of making far reaching condemnation against him
when he is not a candidate in the election. Their reliance on the memos
submitted by some candidate as the basis for those finding violates the
Constitutional safeguard of fair hearing as the President was never served
with those memos to enable him make a response before such condemnations
were made assuming he was a necessary person to appear before the sub-
committee.

The resolution of the meeting of 11% June 2026 is that sub-committee is to
report to the entire body at a reconvened meeting. From the face of the
purported report, it is clear that none of these persons who attended the 11%
June 2026 meeting were availed a copy of the purported report or make any
input to the purported Report. Assuming without conceding that they have
received the report, the meeting cannot give the directions as it violates the
Legal Practitioners Act and the Nigerian Bar Association Constitution. Until
the Honourable Attorney General reconvenes another meeting after the 11%
June 2026 Meeting to consider the report of the sub-committee, there cannot
be any decision.

If the sub-committee were empowered to review the issues contained in the
Report, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, who is the proponent of the cases of the
Plaintiffs cannot Chair such sub-committee as he is clearly bias and has lost
any neutrality to enable a sub-committee chaired by him to propose a
resolution to these cases. There is no way the Nigerian Bar Association would
have agreed that a person who is bias over one of the parties should head any
committee considering his partisan role in the entitle matter. This report
which is said to have been purportedly accepted by the Honourable Attorney
General is unacceptable owing to its source. One is reminded of the dicta in
the case of MOHAMMED vs THE NIGERIAN ARMY (2001) | CHR 470 at 485at
485
“The easily noticeable disfavour manifestly discernible from the
proceedings in the court martial betrays an indecent primordial intent
of conviction very much reminiscent of a sheriff in the Wild West in
U.S.A. who while speaking of a horse thief said: ‘’We will give him a
fine trial and after that we will hang him The trial should therefore be
vitiated’’. The unnecessary prejudice and the devil may care attitude
shown by the presiding adjudicator in the trial ‘’Court martial’’ does
not augur well for the tenets and principle of fair hearing enshrined in
our constitution to reign’’ page 491-2.

We therefore state categorically that the purported Sub-Committee report
which contain the Purported directives of the Honourable Attorney General is
beyond its remit and biased.

We are by this press release stating categorically that

a.

That the Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body not subject to
control and directive of the office of the Honourable Attorney General
of the Federation or any other arm of government.

. The NBA National Officers electoral process shall continue as scheduled

by the ECNBA

That the Nigerian Bar Association attended the meeting convened by
the Honourable Attorney as a Co-Respondent with the aim of amicable
resolution of the law suit commenced by Egbe Amofin giving rise to
Appeal No. CA/IB/110/2026 Between Aham Ejelam SAN & 4 Ors v
Ibrahim Lawal and7 Ors. Suggested Resolution in a meeting seeking to
resolve a dispute already before the Court can only be considered
binding on the parties if all the parties accept same and cannot in any
guise be termed a directive that must willy nilly be accepted by the
parties in the matter.

. At no time was the Honourable Attorney General empowered to issue

directives that are capable of truncating the democratic succession
process of the NBA or even suggest a “recalibration” of the NBA
Constitution.

. We consider the report suspect as the Report is not contained on the

official letter of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation,
the Nigerian Bar Association is not in receipt of any communication from
the office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and
cannot take it as the position of the Honourable Attorney General of the
Federation who is a Bar man.
f. The Nigerian Bar Association since the time that Aare Muyiwa Akinboro
raised the issue of the use of NIN in the electoral process checked the
risk assessment and have come to the conclusion that any modification
of the current platform configuration will truncate the election
particularly as the NIMC platform may not be able to accommodate the
surge in the authentication requests during the periods of the Election.

g. The Nigerian Bar Association is a body that have clear decision making
bodies and can only subject itself to its Constitutional mechanism, the
office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation is not one
of them.

h. The ECNBA have not been shown to have done anything wrong in its
activities since its constitution.

i. It is discriminatory to contend that merely because a service provider
is a sole proprietorship then he cannot provide services when most legal
practitioners including members of the Committee have sole
proprietary law offices where they continue to discharge stellar legal
practice.

We are committed to due process of the law

Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN
President