NBA says AGF directives on 2026 election are invalid

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has rejected claims that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) directed a delay in its 2026 national officers’ election.

The NBA stated that only its National Executive Council (NEC) can make that decision. This was made clear in a statement from its president, Afam Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), on Tuesday.

The statement responded to a document circulating online. This document allegedly included a report from a sub-committee and comments linked to the AGF.

The circulated document supposedly called for the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) to be disbanded, the election postponed, a new election service provider appointed, and a caretaker committee set up. It also mentioned introducing National Identification Number (NIN) verification for voters and changing the NBA Constitution to remove universal suffrage.

However, the NBA emphasized 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 statement added.

The association described the alleged directives as “entirely unconstitutional” and “ultra vires” to the powers of the AGF. They argued that the Legal Practitioners Act does not give the AGF the right to interfere in NBA matters.

Mr Osigwe pointed out that Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act clearly shows when an outside body can interfere in the association's affairs. He noted that none of those situations applied here.

The disagreement comes from issues around the NBA’s 2026 national officers’ election. This election has seen legal action from members of Egbe Amofin O’odua in the Oyo State High Court.

To help resolve the issue, the Attorney General of the Federation held a stakeholders’ meeting on June 11. Representatives from the involved parties were present.

Mr Osigwe mentioned that at the meeting, everyone agreed to create a sub-committee. Its job was to talk to the parties and help withdraw the ongoing court cases before reporting back to the larger group.

The NBA said it never got any official message about those recommendations and questioned if the document was real.

The association stated that the supposed recommendations only reflected what the Egbe Amofin cases were seeking in court.

The NBA maintained that the Attorney General, who called the meeting to help solve the problem, was really a “party/mediator” and could not legally issue orders to the parties.

The NBA mentioned that all former presidents who attended the meeting, except Wole Olanipekun, a SAN, thought the Egbe Amofin suits were baseless and should be dropped.

They added that the sub-committee was never given permission to look into the actions of the NBA president or make findings against him, especially since he is not a candidate in the election.

The association argued that relying on documents from some candidates without letting the president respond violated the right to a fair hearing.

They also maintained that the sub-committee was supposed to report to everyone at a follow-up meeting before any decision could be made.

According to the statement, no one from the June 11 meeting received a copy of the alleged report or was asked to comment on it before it appeared.

The NBA also questioned the fairness of the sub-committee and said Mr Olanipekun could not chair it fairly due to his involvement in the issue.

The association further doubted the validity of the supposed report since it was not on the official letterhead of the AGF's office and had not been formally sent to the NBA.

Regarding the NIN verification proposal, the NBA pointed out that it had already done a risk assessment. This was after the issue was raised by SAN Muyiwa Akinboro.

The assessment showed that changing the current voting system could cause problems. The National Identity Management Commission might not handle the expected number of authentication requests during voting.

The NBA defended its current election service provider. They called it “discriminatory” to suggest that a sole proprietor could not provide election services when many legal practitioners, including committee members, run sole proprietorship law firms.

The NBA also stated that the ECNBA had not been shown to have done anything wrong since it was formed.

The association insisted that suggestions made during mediation could only become binding if all parties agreed. They could not be treated as orders.

The NBA stressed that the Attorney General did not have the power to issue directives that could stop the NBA's democratic process or propose changes to the NBA Constitution.

The NBA confirmed it would stick to its electoral timetable as set by the ECNBA. They “remained committed to due process of the law.”

This controversy arises at a key time in the NBA’s electoral cycle. The association is set to elect new national officers in two weeks using its electronic voting system.

Under NBA rules, the ECNBA conducts the election, while eligible lawyers vote online after meeting requirements like paying practicing fees and branch dues and completing voter verification.

The election takes place before the current national officers' term ends to ensure a smooth transition. Even though Mr Osigwe's administration is still in charge, the election will bring in new leaders to take over after their term ends.

The ECNBA has completed important steps in the process, like screening candidates, publishing the final candidate list and the voters’ register, and conducting voter education before the election.