ABUJA — The leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association has rejected allegations of bias, partisan conduct and abuse of institutional platforms levelled against its President, Afam Osigwe, insisting that the claims are unfounded and legally untenable.
In a detailed response addressed to the Board of Trustees and now circulating within the legal community, counsel to the NBA President said the petition alleging interference in the association’s electoral process was based on incorrect assumptions about the status of the upcoming elections and the powers of the President under the NBA Constitution.
The letter, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Abdul Mohammed, maintained that there was no basis for the allegations and urged the trustees to dismiss the petition in its entirety.
The petitioners, Muyiwa Akinboro and Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, had reportedly raised concerns over alleged bias and conduct they claimed undermined confidence in the leadership of the Bar.
However, the response from the NBA President’s legal team argued that the electoral process which the petition referred to had not even commenced.
Electoral process yet to begin
According to the response, under the provisions of the NBA Constitution, an individual only becomes an aspirant after completing and submitting an Expression of Interest form for a specific office.
The letter noted that as at the time the petition was filed, neither of the petitioners had obtained or submitted the required forms, meaning that there were no constitutionally recognised aspirants or candidates in the forthcoming election.
It therefore argued that the claim 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 allegations amounted to “placing something on nothing and expecting it to stand.”
The counsel further explained that the Electoral Committee of the NBA had issued only a few public notices so far, while the window for submission of Expression of Interest forms is expected to close on February 28, 2026.
Independence of electoral body
The response also emphasised the constitutional independence of the Electoral Committee of the NBA, stressing that the body operates independently of the President and the National Executive Committee.
Citing provisions of the NBA Constitution, the letter noted that members of the electoral committee are appointed by the National Executive Council upon the recommendation of the National Executive Committee, not by the President.
It added that there had been no complaint that those appointed failed to meet constitutional requirements or that their appointment did not follow due process.
According to the response, the constitutional framework makes it impossible for the President to manipulate or control the electoral machinery in the manner alleged.
Maiduguri NEC meeting
Addressing allegations that the NBA President admitted bias during the National Executive Council meeting held in Maiduguri on February 5, 2026, the legal team described the claim as misleading.
The letter explained that the meeting was open to members of the council, including those who may have interest in future elections, and that several individuals displayed banners, caps, flyers and other materials at the venue.
It stated that no individual was denied access or given preferential treatment during the meeting.
Rather, the response said the President used the opportunity to criticise what he described as the increasing monetisation of NBA politics.
According to the letter, he warned that financial inducement undermines the integrity of the Bar and urged the electoral committee to put in place firm guidelines to curb the practice.
The response added that the President also reaffirmed that while members of the leadership retain their right to vote, the Constitution prohibits them from openly endorsing candidates, a provision he pledged to uphold.
AGC 2025 allegations
On claims of partisan conduct during the NBA Annual General Conference held in Enugu in 2025, the letter said the allegations did not reflect what transpired at the conference.
It noted that various individuals who may be interested in contesting future elections openly displayed campaign materials and distributed souvenirs during the event without interference.
The response further pointed out that the petitioners themselves displayed banners bearing their photographs alongside that of the NBA President across strategic locations within the conference venue.
According to the counsel, such displays could create the impression that they enjoyed the backing of the President and the administration.
Claims of lobbying
The legal team also dismissed allegations that the NBA President had been lobbying for particular candidates during visits to branches across the country.
It stated that it is a long-standing tradition for NBA Presidents to attend branch events when invited, interact with members and participate in activities of the association nationwide.
The response described the claim that such visits amounted to political lobbying as lacking factual and logical basis.
Counter-claims over campaign activities
In what appeared to be a counter-accusation, the letter alleged that the petitioners themselves had engaged in activities similar to those they complained about.
It listed several instances where souvenirs and other branded items were reportedly distributed at different NBA meetings and conferences, including branch gatherings and National Executive Council sessions.
According to the response, these activities were widely visible and acknowledged within the association.
SPIDEL election issue
The response also addressed allegations that the NBA President unilaterally annulled elections in the Section on Public Interest and Development Law.
The legal team clarified that decisions regarding the leadership of the section were taken at its Annual General Meeting and approved by members.
It further stated that the NBA President was not present at the meeting where the decisions were taken, stressing that there was no evidence of unilateral action on his part.
Call for intervention
Consequently, the legal team urged the Board of Trustees of the NBA to call the petitioners to order and dismiss the petition.
It maintained that the allegations were unnecessary and unsupported by facts, warning that such claims could distract from the smooth conduct of the association’s affairs.
The development is expected to heighten debates within the legal community as preparations gradually build up for the next NBA election cycle.
