The NBA’s statement was in response to a document said to contain the report of a sub-committee and comments attributed to the AGF, which has been circulating online.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has rejected alleged directives attributed to the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) seeking to postpone its 2026 national officers’ election.
The association insisted that only its National Executive Council (NEC) has the constitutional authority to take such a decision, according to a statement issued on Tuesday by its president, Afam Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).
The statement was in response to a document said to contain the report of a sub-committee and comments attributed to the AGF, which has been circulating online.
The circulated document purportedly directed the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), postponement of the election, replacement of the current election service provider, the appointment of a caretaker committee, the introduction of National Identification Number (NIN) verification for voters and the “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution to remove universal suffrage.
However, NBA stated on Tuesday that it “is an independent body not subject to the control and directive of the Office of the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation or any other arm of government.”
“The NBA National Officers electoral process shall continue as scheduled by the ECNBA.”
The association described the alleged directives as “entirely unconstitutional” and “ultra vires” the powers of the AGF. It argued that the Legal Practitioners Act does not empower the AGF to interfere in the affairs of the NBA.
Mr Osigwe said Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act clearly sets out the limited circumstances in which an external body may interfere in the affairs of the association, adding that none of those conditions had arisen.
The disagreement stems from the controversy surrounding the NBA’s 2026 national officers’ election, which has been the subject of litigation by members of Egbe Amofin O’odua before the Oyo State High Court.
Amid efforts to resolve the dispute, the Attorney General of the Federation convened a stakeholders’ meeting on 11 June involving representatives of the parties.
Mr Osigwe said participants at the meeting agreed to establish a sub-committee whose sole responsibility was to liaise with the parties and facilitate the withdrawal of the pending court cases before reporting back to the larger meeting.
The NBA said it never received any official communication conveying those recommendations and questioned the authenticity of the document.
The association argued that the alleged recommendations merely reflected the reliefs being sought in the pending Egbe Amofin cases before the Oyo State High Court.
It maintained that the Attorney General of the Federation, having convened the meeting as part of efforts to resolve the dispute, was at best “a party/mediator” and could not lawfully issue directives binding on the parties.
The NBA said all its past presidents who attended the meeting, except Wole Olanipekun, a SAN, agreed that the Egbe Amofin suits were frivolous and should be withdrawn.
It added that the sub-committee was never authorised to investigate the conduct of the NBA president or make findings against him, particularly as he is not a candidate in the election.
The association argued that any reliance on memoranda submitted by some candidates without giving its president an opportunity to respond violated the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing.
It further maintained that the sub-committee was expected to report to all participants at a reconvened meeting before any decision could be taken.
According to the statement, none of those who attended the 11 June meeting was given a copy of the purported report or invited to comment on it before it surfaced.
The NBA also questioned the neutrality of the sub-committee and argued that Mr Olanipekun could not impartially chair it because of his involvement in the dispute.
The association further questioned the authenticity of the purported report, as it was not issued on the official letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and had not been formally communicated to the NBA.
On the proposal to introduce NIN verification, the association said it had already conducted a risk assessment after the issue was raised by a SAN, Muyiwa Akinboro.
According to the statement, the assessment showed that altering the current voting platform could disrupt the election because the National Identity Management Commission platform might not be able to process the expected volume of authentication requests during voting.
The NBA also defended the current election service provider, describing as “discriminatory” the suggestion that a sole proprietor could not provide election services when many legal practitioners, including members of the committee, operate sole proprietorship law firms.
It also stated that the ECNBA had not been shown to have committed any wrongdoing since it was constituted.
The association maintained that suggested resolutions reached during mediation could only become binding if accepted by all parties and could not be treated as directives.
It insisted that the Attorney General was never empowered to issue directives capable of truncating the NBA’s democratic succession process or proposing changes to the NBA Constitution.
The NBA reaffirmed that it would continue with its electoral timetable as scheduled by the ECNBA as it “remained committed to due process of the law.”
The controversy comes at a critical stage in the NBA’s electoral cycle, with the association expected to elect a new set of national officers in two weeks’ time through its electronic voting system.
Under the NBA constitution, the ECNBA conducts the election, while eligible lawyers vote online after meeting requirements such as payment of practising fees and branch dues within the stipulated period and completing voter verification.
