On Monday July 20, 2026, Nigerian Lawyers will go to polls to elect their national officers. The past few election cycles of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), have been trailed with criticisms and suspicion. Will this year’s election be different? Onikepo Braithwaite and Jude Igbanoi sought out the Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Electoral Committee (ECNBA), Aham Ejelam, SAN to tease out some of the pressing issues surrounding the forthcoming elections, the level of preparedness of the Committee and other matters arising, including the choice of IT Providers and the process of authentication of voters
Elections into the national offices of the Nigerian Bar Association is just a few weeks away, July 29, 2026 to be precise. As the Chairman of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) what level of preparedness can you assure Nigerian Lawyers of?
The 2026 NBA National Elections are scheduled for Monday, 20th July 2026, and I can assure all Nigerian Lawyers that the Electoral Committee is on track. The Final Voters List has been published, and is available for inspection on www.ecnba.org.ng. The voting platform has been developed by our appointed Electronic Voting Service Provider, Mikrodigital Connect, and is currently undergoing the remaining stages of security certification and readiness testing ahead of Election Day. Our published timetable sets out every remaining milestone, from platform configuration and penetration testing, through trial messaging to voters, to authentication testing in early July. We are not behind on any of these milestones, and I am confident that we will deliver a credible election on the scheduled date.
What was the reason for the pre-election litigation? A group was said to have approached the court to stop the election. Is that true? If so, what’s the status of that case? How confident is the ECNBA that there will be no further litigation to disrupt the July 20 election date? There were some pending appeals by some disgruntled candidates. Have the appeals been determined? How were they settled?
I am aware of the reports concerning litigation aimed at the election. The Electoral Committee’s position is that, it operates strictly within the framework of the NBA Constitution 2015 (as amended in 2025), and any party with a grievance is entitled to seek redress through the appropriate channels, whether the appropriate channel is the court or the internal dispute mechanisms provided under the Constitution are issues to be determined by the courts since the matters are sub judice.
On the question of appeals by candidates following the screening exercise, I can confirm that all appeals filed before the National Officers Election Appeals Committee were duly considered and determined, in accordance with Part VIII of the Second Schedule to the Constitution, before the publication of the Final List of Qualified Candidates. Every aspirant whose name did not appear on that list was individually notified of the Committee’s decision, and had the opportunity to be heard on appeal. That process is concluded.
As for further disruption, I will say only this: the Electoral Committee has conducted every stage of this process; screening, voter verification, candidate publication, service provider procurement strictly in accordance with the Constitution and with full documentation. We are confident in the integrity of our process, and remain focused on delivering the election on 20th July, 2026.
The issue of the process of selection and choice of IT Provider for the balloting has remained contentious. Apparently while one of the two companies selected is alleged not to meet good corporate governance standards, the other doesn’t appear to be registered with the NDPC as a Data Protection Compliance Company. Kindly, comment on this. In the past, the allegation has been that the process of picking the IT provider for the election has always been opaque and not open for scrutiny
This is an important question, and I want to address it candidly. Following a Request for Proposal issued on 21st April, 2026, the ECNBA received nineteen (19) bids. These were reviewed, and evaluated down to a shortlist of six (6) companies that met the minimum technical and eligibility requirements. The shortlisted companies were then subjected to an interview and assessment process on 25th May, 2026, and I want to emphasise that this stage involved the participation of candidates and their nominated IT consultants, who made valuable contributions to that exercise. This was a deliberate decision by the Committee to bring transparency and scrutiny into a process that, as you stated, has historically been criticised as opaque.
At the conclusion of that process, Mikrodigital Connect was appointed as the Electronic Voting Service Provider, with effect from 1st June, 2026, and is responsible for the management of IT operations, development, deployment, and supervision of the secure digital voting platform for this election, while Thanelinc Nigeria Limited has been engaged as the Data Protection Officer (DPO). The two entities are resolutely in alignment with the ECNBA, on the mission and commitment to deliver credible elections in this 2026 NBA National Elections.
On the specific point regarding NDPC registration, Thanelinc Nigeria Limited was appointed as Data Protection Officer for this election, and its role includes ensuring that all data handling in connection with the election complies with the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 and applicable NDPC regulations. I will not be drawn into commenting on the corporate registration status of any specific entity in this forum, that is a matter of public record that can be independently verified, and if there are specific compliance questions, they are properly addressed to the entities themselves or to the NDPC directly. What I can confirm is that the Committee’s appointments were made following due diligence, and the Committee continues to hold both appointed entities accountable to the terms of their engagement.
I would also note that this Committee has, from the outset, taken the unusual step of involving candidates and their technical consultants in the assessment process specifically to address the historical criticism of opacity that you’ve referenced. That door remains open.
I believe involving candidates and their technical consultants directly in the assessment stage represents a meaningful departure from the way this process has historically been criticised, and I would welcome any further suggestions on how to make future iterations of this process even more open.
What about the fact that the NIN is supposed to be used as a voter verification tool. Apparently, this has not been incorporated into the process, raising questions as to how credible the elections can/will be. Do you plan to include the NIN, since two of the Presidential candidates have complained about this omission?
On NIN, I am aware that this has become a subject of public discussion, including a suggestion that the National Identification Number be incorporated into the voter authentication process. The Committee took this suggestion seriously, and commissioned a full technical assessment of its feasibility.
That assessment identified serious concerns. First, the Final Voters Register does not currently contain the NIN of any voter, and the register has already been verified and frozen, there is no operationally feasible way to collect this data for over 80,000 voters before Election Day. Second, and this is a point I want Lawyers to really understand: a significant number of our female colleagues changed their surnames on the Supreme Court Roll following marriage, but many have not updated their NIN records to reflect that change. Under a NIN-based authentication system, these colleagues, fully eligible voters would fail authentication simply because the name on their NIN doesn’t match the name on the Roll. That is not a hypothetical; it is a near-certainty affecting potentially thousands of our members, and there is no way to fix it before 20th July.
Third, our members in the diaspora present a similar problem. Many Nigerian Lawyers who have lived abroad for years, either never enrolled for a NIN because enrolment has historically required physical presence in Nigeria or enrolled years ago and have had no opportunity to update their records since. A NIN-based system would lock these members out entirely, not because they’re ineligible, but because of an administrative requirement they have no practical way to satisfy from where they live.
Fourth, integrating the NIMC verification system into a live voting platform this close to an election, introduces a dependency on external government infrastructure that is outside anyone’s control, if that system experiences downtime or delays on Election Day, voters using it would simply be unable to authenticate, with no fallback.
Our current SCN-plus-OTP system is two-factor authentication, it is a recognised global standard, it has been built, tested, and is ready. It directly addresses the impersonation concern that NIN is meant to solve, without introducing any of the risks I’ve just outlined.
So to answer your question directly: no, NIN will not be incorporated into this election. Not because the suggestion lacks merit in principle, but because, on the facts, it would disenfranchise thousands of eligible members, including a disproportionate number of our female colleagues and our diaspora members for the sake of addressing a risk our existing system already mitigates. I would rather defend a sound technical decision, than a popular one that harms our own members.
I would add one final point. I have seen commentary on this and other matters from members of this Bar, including some who operate as bloggers, that has, in my respectful view, crossed the line from legitimate scrutiny into misrepresentation. I want to be measured here: scrutiny is welcome, and always will be. But, our members remain bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct regardless of the platform they choose to speak on, and where commentary becomes demonstrably false or deliberately inflammatory, this Committee will not fail to remind such persons that our profession deserves better than that, particularly at a moment when public confidence in this process matters most.
Controversies have trailed the last few elections, from the disqualification of candidates by ECNBA to allegations of malpractice here and there through the IT Platform. What guarantee can you give to Lawyers this time around, that the voting platform is fully reliable and there is no way to manipulate it, and that the elections will be free, fair and credible? What specific measures has the ECNBA put in place to ensure a seamless voting process, with regard to server capacity and contingency for technical failures?
I want to be very direct here. The voting platform employs a two-factor authentication model; Supreme Court Number verification followed by a One-Time Password sent to the voter’s registered email and phone number combined with end-to-end encryption, immutable audit logs, and real-time monitoring. Complete ballot secrecy is guaranteed. No person, not even ECNBA officials, not the service provider’s personnel, not anyone else will have access to how any individual voter casts his/her ballot. All votes are encrypted and anonymised, at the point of submission.
On server capacity and contingency: the platform is undergoing independent penetration testing and security certification in the days ahead, followed by full authentication and readiness testing in early July, which will include load testing to simulate Election Day traffic. These are not optional steps, they are mandatory gates that must be passed before the platform is certified for use.
I will not stand here and tell you that any system, anywhere, is beyond the theoretical possibility of failure. What I can tell you is that this Committee has built in the testing, the redundancy checks, and the oversight mechanisms to identify and resolve issues before Election Day, not during it.
Was the voter authentication process glitch-free? Lawyers hope that the compilation of the Voters List was successful this year, unlike in the past where Lawyers were unable to vote because though they found their names on the Preliminary Voters List, their names did not appear on the Final Voters List. Can you assure Lawyers, that nothing like that will happen this time around?
I understand this concern, and it is a fair one given our history. I want to assure Lawyers that this year’s process has been different. The Preliminary Voters List was published on 19th May, 2026, and members were given until 27th May, 2026 to verify their details including a self-service facility that allowed members to update their email addresses and phone numbers directly, with email changes secured by OTP verification. This was the first time such a self-service tool has been available to members.
Following the closure of that verification window, the register was frozen, and the Final List of Eligible Voters was published on 3rd June, 2026, compiled directly from the verified register. I am not in a position to guarantee that not a single name will present an issue in a register of over 80,000 members, isolated administrative errors can occur, but I can say that the process this year has been more rigorous, more transparent, and gave members more tools to correct their own records than any previous election. Any member who identifies a discrepancy should contact us immediately at [email protected].
With just a few weeks to election, has your Committee lifted the ban on election campaigns? Notice No. 4 strictly prohibits campaign materials, gifts, philanthropy, endorsements by Branches/National Officers/Geographical groups, and financial inducements, with disqualification as a sanction. What are the dos and don’ts of the campaign? How is the ECNBA monitoring compliance? Are there any ongoing complaints/investigations? What steps are being taken to prevent godfatherism, proxy campaigning, or elite capture within Branches/Sections, which have historically undermined NBA internal democracy?
The campaign period opened on 10th June, 2026 and runs until 18th July, 2026, with 19th July designated as a campaign-free day before the election. Notice No. 4 remains fully in force.
To be clear on the dos and don’ts: candidates may canvass support through lawful means, engaging with members directly, presenting their manifestos, participating in scheduled debate sessions. What is prohibited is the distribution of campaign materials, gifts, philanthropic gestures timed to the campaign, endorsements by Branches, National Officers, or geographical groupings, and any form of financial inducement. The sanction for breach, is disqualification.
On monitoring, the Committee receives and reviews complaints as they arise. I will not discuss the specifics of any ongoing matter in this interview, as doing so would compromise the fairness of the process to the parties involved. What I will say is that no complaint received by this Committee goes unaddressed.
On godfatherism and elite capture, these are real concerns in our Bar’s history, and I will not pretend otherwise. What I can say is that the safeguards built into this election; the published timetable, the transparent procurement process, the independent appeals mechanism, and the secrecy guarantees of the voting platform itself, are all designed to reduce the influence of any single individual or bloc over the outcome. The vote, ultimately, belongs to each individual member, cast in secret, and no Branch leader or National Officer can see how any member voted.
It appears that there is a need for voter-education, as many older Lawyers who are neither computer literate or internet savvy, always have challenges casting their votes online. Should Lawyers expect some tutorial on the step-by-step process of casting their ballot in the election?
Yes. We are acutely aware that a significant proportion of our membership, particularly senior colleagues, may not be comfortable navigating an online voting process. To that end, the ECNBA has issued a Comprehensive Guide to Electronic Voting, setting out the step-by-step procedure from accessing the portal through to receiving a confirmation receipt. This Guide has been published and circulated. We are also conducting zonal and Branch-level voter sensitisation sessions between 1st and 5th July, 2026, specifically to walk members through the process in person. I would encourage every Branch to ensure their members, especially older colleagues, attend these sessions.
How will Lawyers be assured that ECNBA will be fully transparent with result collation, audit and declaration?
Collation, audit validation, and security verification of results will take place on 20th and 21st July, 2026, immediately following the close of voting, with official results declared on 21st July, 2026. The platform’s immutable audit logs means that every vote cast is recorded in a manner that can be independently verified, without compromising the secrecy of individual ballots. The collation process will involve the Electoral Committee, the Electronic Voting Service Provider, and is subject to the oversight obligations of our Data Protection Officer. We intend for the process to be one that any observer, candidate, or member can have confidence in.
After the election, what protocols have been put in place for post-election petitions/appeal process, if and when any appeal arises?
The protocol is constitutional and well established. Any candidate wishing to challenge the outcome of the election has seven (7) days from the declaration of results that is, until 27th July, 2026 to file a petition. The National Officers Election Appeals Committee then has twenty-eight (28) days to determine all petitions filed, which gives us a target date of 18th August, 2026 for final resolution of any post-election disputes. This timeline is published, and known to all candidates in advance.
What would you say have been your greatest challenges in this important assignment so far?
Honestly, the greatest challenge has been balancing speed with rigour. An election of this scale over 80,000 eligible voters, 145 Branches, National Officers and GCB positions, generates an enormous amount of administrative and technical work, and every one of those steps has a constitutional deadline attached to it. Add to that the reality that every decision this Committee makes is scrutinised, sometimes in real time on social media, often before the Committee itself has had the opportunity to explain its reasoning. Managing that environment, making sound decisions under time pressure, while also communicating clearly with over 80,000 members has been, without question, the defining challenge of this assignment.
Thank you. I would encourage every member to visit www.ecnba.org.ng to review the published timetable, and read the Guide to Electronic Voting ahead of 20th July 2026.
Thank you, Learned Silk.
