ABUJA — A fresh dispute has erupted within the Nigerian Bar Association following allegations of bias, partisan conduct and abuse of institutional platforms in the leadership of the association, with petitioners now being accused of raising claims described as baseless and unsupported by facts.
The controversy arose after a petition addressed to the Board of Trustees alleged that the leadership of the Bar had interfered in the forthcoming elections and allowed partisan activities to flourish within official events of the association.
However, in a detailed response signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Abdul Mohammed, counsel to the leadership of the association dismissed the allegations, insisting that the claims were premature and legally untenable.
The petition was reportedly authored by senior lawyers, Muyiwa Akinboro and Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, who alleged bias, partisan conduct and interference with the electoral process within the association.
But the response argued that the petition was built on wrong assumptions, particularly regarding the status of the upcoming elections.
Electoral process yet to commence
According to the reply, the electoral process within the Bar has not formally begun, noting that under the association’s constitution, an individual only becomes an aspirant after completing and submitting an Expression of Interest form for a specific office.
The letter stated that as at the time the petition was written, the petitioners had not obtained or submitted the required forms, meaning that there were no constitutionally recognised aspirants or candidates in the forthcoming elections.
On that basis, the response maintained that the allegation of interference with the electoral process could not stand.
“It is legally untenable to allege interference with an electoral process that has not yet commenced,” the response stated, adding that the claims amounted to placing something on nothing.
It further noted that the Electoral Committee of the association had only issued a few public notices so far, while the deadline for submission of Expression of Interest forms is expected to lapse on February 28, 2026.
Independence of electoral committee
The response also emphasised that the Electoral Committee operates independently of the leadership of the association, as guaranteed by the constitution of the Bar.
It explained that members of the committee are appointed by the National Executive Council upon the recommendation of the National Executive Committee, stressing that the President does not appoint or control the body.
According to the counsel, there had been no complaint that those appointed into the committee failed to meet the constitutional requirements or that the process of their appointment was flawed.
The letter therefore insisted that the allegation that the leadership could manipulate the electoral process was not supported by any evidence.
Maiduguri NEC meeting controversy
Addressing claims that bias was allegedly admitted during the National Executive Council meeting held in Maiduguri on February 5, 2026, the response described the allegation as misleading.
It explained that the meeting was open to members of the council, including individuals who may have interest in future leadership positions.
According to the letter, banners, flyers, caps and other materials were displayed by different individuals at the venue without discrimination.
Rather than show bias, the response stated that the leadership used the opportunity to criticise what it described as the increasing monetisation of politics within the Bar.
The letter added that members were reminded of constitutional provisions prohibiting inducement and were urged to ensure that the forthcoming elections are conducted in line with the rules of the association.
Allegations over conference activities
On claims of partisan conduct during the Annual General Conference held in Enugu in 2025, the response said the allegations did not reflect what transpired during the event.
It stated that several individuals who may be interested in future leadership positions displayed souvenirs and campaign materials throughout the conference without interference.
The reply also noted that the petitioners themselves displayed banners bearing their photographs alongside that of the leadership of the association across strategic areas of the conference venue.
According to the counsel, such displays could even create the impression that they enjoyed the backing of the administration.
Claims of lobbying dismissed
The response further rejected allegations that visits to branches across the country were part of lobbying efforts for particular candidates.
It explained that it is a long-standing tradition for leaders of the association to attend branch events nationwide when invited, interact with members and participate in activities of the branches.
The letter argued that interpreting such visits as political lobbying lacked both factual and logical foundation.
Counter-allegations over campaign activities
In a twist, the response accused the petitioners of engaging in activities similar to those they had complained about.
It listed instances where souvenirs and branded items were allegedly distributed at different meetings and events of the association, including branch gatherings, conferences and sessions of the National Executive Council.
According to the letter, these activities were widely visible and acknowledged within the association.
SPIDEL election clarification
The response also addressed claims that the leadership unilaterally annulled elections within the Section on Public Interest and Development Law, explaining that decisions concerning the section were taken at its Annual General Meeting and approved by members.
It added that the leadership was not present at the meeting where the decisions were taken, insisting that there was no evidence of unilateral action.
Call for dismissal of petition
Consequently, the counsel urged the Board of Trustees, described as custodians of the traditions of the Bar, to dismiss the petition and call the petitioners to order.
The response maintained that the allegations were unnecessary and unsupported by facts, warning that such claims could create unnecessary tension within the association.
The dispute has nevertheless sparked debate within the legal community as preparations gradually gather momentum for the next election cycle in the Bar.
