The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has launched a blistering attack on an alleged directive attributed to the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), purportedly seeking to halt its 2026 national officers’ election, insisting that neither the Attorney General nor any arm of government possesses the constitutional authority to interfere in the affairs of the country’s foremost legal body.
In a strongly worded statement issued by its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), the NBA described the purported directive as unconstitutional, ultra vires, legally ineffective and a dangerous attempt to bring the independent legal association under the control of the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation.
The association said it became aware of a document said to contain the report of a sub-committee, alongside comments allegedly attributed to the Attorney General directing, among other recommendations, the postponement of the NBA’s 2026 election.
Rejecting the document in its entirety, the NBA maintained that only its National Executive Council (NEC), acting under the provisions of the association’s Constitution, has the power to postpone or alter its electoral process.
“The Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body not subject to the control or directives of the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation or any other arm of government,” Osigwe declared.
The association argued that Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act clearly defines the limited circumstances under which any external authority may intervene in the affairs of the NBA, stressing that none of those conditions exists in the present case.
It further questioned both the authenticity and legality of the purported directives, noting that the recommendations closely resemble the reliefs being sought in two pending lawsuits instituted by Egbe Amofin before the High Court of Oyo State.
According to the NBA, the Attorney General, who convened mediation meetings over the electoral dispute, lacks the legal authority to grant, recommend or impose reliefs that are already the subject of ongoing litigation.
“The Honourable Attorney General cannot grant reliefs sought in the two Egbe Amofin suits in his capacity as a convener of a mediation meeting or even as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation,” Osigwe said.
“The Honourable Attorney General is at best a party or mediator, and it is settled law that a mediator does not issue directives to parties in a matter in which he is involved.”
The association disclosed that the sub-committee established after the June 11 mediation meeting was merely mandated to engage the parties with a view to facilitating the withdrawal of pending court cases and was never authorised to investigate, indict or make adverse findings against the NBA President or the Electoral Committee.
The NBA accused the committee of breaching the principles of natural justice by relying on memoranda submitted by some election contestants without affording its President the constitutional right to respond.
It further alleged that the committee’s report was never presented before all participants at the mediation meeting for deliberation or adoption, rendering any purported recommendations procedurally defective.
The association also questioned the neutrality of Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), arguing that his involvement in matters connected with the underlying litigation made it inappropriate for him to chair any committee considering issues arising from the dispute.
Casting further doubt on the document’s credibility, the NBA noted that it was neither issued on the official letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General nor formally communicated to the association through any recognised government channel.
On the recommendation to introduce National Identification Number (NIN) verification into the electoral process, the association disclosed that it had already examined the proposal but concluded that implementing it at this stage could jeopardise the credibility of the election because of concerns over the capacity of the National Identity Management Commission’s authentication platform to handle the anticipated volume of verification requests.
The NBA also defended the appointment of its electronic voting service provider, dismissing suggestions that the provider should be replaced merely because he operates as a sole proprietor.
According to the association, such reasoning is discriminatory and hypocritical, pointing out that many distinguished Nigerian lawyers, including members of the committee that produced the report, operate successful sole proprietorship law firms.
Reaffirming its commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law, the NBA declared that the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) would continue preparations for the 2026 national officers’ election as scheduled.
“We therefore state categorically that the purported Sub-Committee report, which contains the purported directives of the Honourable Attorney General, is beyond its remit, biased and incapable of binding the Nigerian Bar Association,” Osigwe said.
He stressed that the Office of the Attorney General is not one of the constitutionally recognised organs of the NBA and therefore cannot dictate or alter the association’s electoral process.
“The NBA National Officers’ electoral process shall continue as scheduled by the ECNBA. We remain firmly committed to due process, the rule of law and the independence of the Nigerian Bar Association.”