The Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, has rejected alleged directive by the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, describing them as unconstitutional and insisting that the association is not under the control of the Federal Government.
In a statement issued on Monday, NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, said only the National Executive Council, NEC, of the association has the constitutional authority to direct the postponement of the 2026 NBA national officers’ election.
The NBA was reacting to a purported report of a sub-committee and comments attributed to the AGF, which allegedly ordered the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the NBA, ECNBA, the postponement of the election, the appointment of a new election service provider, the constitution of a caretaker committee, the inclusion of the National Identification Number, NIN, in the voting process, and a review of the NBA Constitution to end universal suffrage.
Osigwe said the AGF lacked the constitutional powers to issue such directives, stressing that the NBA is an independent professional body governed by its own constitution and the Legal Practitioners Act.
“The Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body not under the control of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation,” the statement said.
He argued that Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act does not empower the Attorney General to interfere in the affairs of the association under the prevailing circumstances.
The NBA also questioned the authenticity of the purported report, noting that it was not issued on the official letterhead of the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and that the association had not received any formal communication from the minister’s office.
According to the statement, the sub-committee set up following a stakeholders’ meeting on June 11, 2026, was mandated only to facilitate the withdrawal of pending lawsuits relating to the NBA election and was not authorised to investigate or make recommendations affecting the electoral process or the association’s leadership.
The association further alleged that the committee exceeded its mandate by making findings against the NBA President without giving him an opportunity to respond, describing the process as a violation of the constitutional right to fair hearing.
It also questioned the neutrality of the committee, arguing that its chairman, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, could not be impartial because of his involvement in the litigation arising from the disputed election.
The NBA maintained that any resolutions reached during mediation convened by the AGF could only become binding if accepted by all parties and could not amount to enforceable directives.
On the proposal to incorporate the National Identification Number into the voting process, the association said its internal assessment showed that making changes to the current election platform at this stage could disrupt the conduct of the election because of potential limitations on the National Identity Management Commission’s authentication system.
The association also defended its current election service provider, rejecting suggestions that the appointment should be terminated because the provider is a sole proprietor. It described such a position as discriminatory, noting that many legal practitioners, including members of the legal profession, operate sole proprietorship law firms.
The NBA reaffirmed that the electoral process for its 2026 national officers would continue as scheduled by the Electoral Committee, insisting that no arm of government has the authority to suspend or alter its constitutional processes.
“The Nigerian Bar Association is a body that has clear decision-making organs and can only subject itself to its constitutional mechanisms. The office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation is not one of them,” the statement added.
