..Odinkalu faults AGF’s directive

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has rejected what it described as purported directives allegedly issued by the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) over its forthcoming 2026 national officers’ election, insisting that only its constitutional organs can determine the conduct or postponement of the exercise.

In a statement signed by NBA President Afam Osigwe (SAN), the association said it had become aware of a document said to contain the report of a three-man sub-committee and comments allegedly attributed to the Attorney-General directing, among other things, the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA), postponement of the national election, termination of the appointment of the current election service provider, appointment of a caretaker committee to conduct fresh elections, mandatory use of the National Identification Number (NIN) for voting, and a review of the NBA Constitution to abolish universal suffrage.

The association described the purported directives as unconstitutional, ultra vires the powers of the Attorney-General and an attempt to bring the NBA under the control of the Federal Government.

According to the NBA, it remains an independent professional body whose affairs cannot be directed by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation except in circumstances expressly provided under Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act.

The association argued that none of the conditions contemplated by the law had arisen to justify any intervention by the Attorney-General in its internal affairs.

The NBA also questioned the authenticity of the alleged report, noting that it was not issued on the official letterhead of the Attorney-General’s office and that the association had not received any formal communication conveying such directives.

It further maintained that the meeting convened by the Attorney-General on June 11, 2026, was intended solely to facilitate an amicable settlement of pending litigation arising from disputes over the NBA elections and could not be used as a platform to issue binding directives.

According to the association, all NBA past presidents present at the meeting, except Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), agreed that the lawsuits filed by Egbe Amofin should be withdrawn as frivolous.

The NBA said the three-man sub-committee established after the meeting was only mandated to liaise with the parties towards the withdrawal of the suits and not to investigate or condemn the conduct of the NBA President.

It faulted the committee for allegedly relying on memoranda submitted by some election contestants without giving the NBA President an opportunity to respond, arguing that such action violated the constitutional principle of fair hearing.

The association further stated that any report prepared by the committee ought to have been presented to the entire body of stakeholders at a reconvened meeting before any decision could be taken.

It also questioned the neutrality of Chief Olanipekun as chairman of the committee, alleging that his role in supporting the applicants in the pending litigation compromised his impartiality.

The NBA stressed that no decision could emerge from the June 11 meeting until another meeting was convened by the Attorney-General to consider the committee’s report.

The association maintained that the electoral process being conducted by the ECNBA would continue as scheduled, insisting that no evidence had been presented to suggest that the electoral committee had acted improperly since its inauguration.

It also rejected the recommendation that the current election technology provider be replaced because it operates as a sole proprietorship, describing such reasoning as discriminatory.

The NBA argued that many lawyers involved in the dispute, operate successful sole proprietorship law firms.

On the proposal to make NIN mandatory for voting, the association disclosed that it had carried out a risk assessment following concerns earlier raised on the issue and concluded that integrating the National Identity Management Commission authentication platform into the election process at this stage could disrupt the exercise because of the likelihood of overwhelming verification requests.

The association reiterated that only its constitutionally recognised decision-making organs could determine its electoral processes and constitutional amendments, insisting that the Attorney-General’s office was not one of such organs.

Meanwhile, the Attorney-General, in a document outlining the outcome of the June 11 stakeholders’ meeting, explained that he convened NBA past presidents meeting following two lawsuits challenging the forthcoming elections.

According to him, the meeting was aimed at achieving an amicable settlement after the Court of Appeal adjourned the matter to enable mediation.

The Attorney-General stated that, as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and Official Leader of the Bar, he sought to facilitate reconciliation among the parties involved in the dispute.

However, legal scholar, Chidi Odinkalu criticised the alleged directives, arguing that the Attorney-General lacked the legal authority to issue binding orders on the NBA while being a party to the pending litigation.

In a public commentary, Odinkalu maintained that any proposals emerging from a mediation process could only become binding if accepted by all parties.

He further argued that the NBA, as an incorporated association, is not a department of the Federal Ministry of Justice and cannot be placed under a sole administrator by executive directive.

The disagreement has further heightened tensions ahead of the NBA’s 2026 national officers’ election, with the association insisting that its democratic succession process will proceed in accordance with its constitution and the timetable already released by the ECNBA.