On November 25, 2025, President Bola Tinubu took steps to initiate far-reaching reforms that will nearly overhaul the regulation of legal practice in the country.
The proposed legislation, titled: The Legal Practitioners Bill 2025, which he transmitted to the Senate, seeks to repeal and re-enact the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (originally enacted in 1962).
Aside from seeking to strengthen professional discipline by improving mechanisms for dealing with misconduct, the Bill introduced clearer licensing requirements not only to standardise who is authorised to practise law in Nigeria, but also to check the excesses of fake lawyers.
In his letter to the Senate, President Tinubu maintained that the extant regulatory structure had become outdated and incapable of responding to the evolving demands on legal practice at home and abroad. He said the proposed legislation introduced “a modern legal framework to strengthen the regulation of the legal profession in Nigeria,” adding that “it will provide the necessary reforms that will enhance professional standards, disciplinary mechanisms, and public confidence in legal practice.”
Referencing the need for a full legislative reset to ensure accountability and restore public trust in the justice system, the draft legislation floated the most sweeping regulatory changes the Bar has witnessed in more than six decades.
However, this reform effort seems to have generated ripples with major misgivings about the bill, anchored on an alleged surreptitious attempt by the executive to hijack the legal profession.
Some of the identified grey areas in the bill, which its antagonists insist deserves fine-tuning, include the proposal for a mandatory two-year pupillage for new lawyers, as well as the increase in the post-call threshold for qualification to be conferred with the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, which moved from 10 to 15 years.
Another aspect of the proposed legislation that drew flak was the inclusion of politically exposed persons, such as the Senate President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and other National Assembly Committee Chairpersons, as members of the Body of Benchers.
On the issue of young lawyers, Section 25 of the Bill proposed a mandatory two-year pupilage before those newly admitted to the Bar would be qualified to practise independently or to establish a law firm.
Section 25 (1) of the Bill provides that: “A person- (a) called to the Nigerian Bar shall undergo a mandatory pupilage for two years except in circumstances which may be permitted by the Body of Benchers in consultation with the Association; and “(b) who has not undertaken the mandatory two years’ pupilage shall not commence practice as sole practitioner or set up a law firm either alone, in partnership or other arrangement with any other legal practitioners.
The Bill further introduced Mandatory Continuing Professional Development, CPD, as a statutory requirement for the renewal of a lawyer’s practising licence.
Though the CPD has been applauded, the mandatory two-year pupillage requirement for New Wigs was flagged as unreasonable.
Those against it argued that, whereas the intention of the draftsman could be to ensure that those licensed to practise law are experienced, it failed to make specific provisions on where or how the New Wigs would be remunerated within their training period.
In view of the economic realities—unlike the NYSC that provides statutory allowances to corps members—the bill was silent on who takes care of freshly baked lawyers while they undergo the two-year compulsory training.
Notwithstanding the fact that Section 23(3) mandated the Body of Benchers to develop and maintain rules and guidelines for fair treatment and selection of pupils; duties, training, and responsibilities of pupil supervisors; support and advice for pupils; and complaints procedures and remuneration of pupils, there was no streamlined blueprint for enforcement or plan for new lawyers who could not secure a place to be accommodated for pupillage.
The contention was that there ought to have been incentives that would propel Law Chambers to admit more new lawyers for the mandatory pupillage.
Nevertheless, the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, has since dispelled the apprehension that the bill was a subtle attempt by the Executive through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation to whittle down its regulatory powers and transfer them to the Body of Benchers.
The legal body, through its President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, said it collaborated with the Office of the AGF and the Body of Benchers to draft the proposed legislation, adding that its inputs into the bill were guided by reports of previous committees, its NEC resolutions, as well as recommendations from its past Annual General Conferences.
It noted that in view of past failed efforts to reform the legal profession, the AGF eventually provided a platform that allowed various interest groups in the profession to cross-fertilize ideas to produce the draft document that was presented to the Senate as an Executive Bill.
The National Executive Council, NEC, of the NBA, in a Communiqué that followed a meeting it held in Maiduguri, Borno State, on February 5, 2026, also confirmed that the association actively participated at the public hearing conducted by the National Assembly on the proposed Legal Practitioners Act (Amendment) Bill.
It also clarified widespread misconceptions concerning the bill and emphasized that the drafting process was collaborative, involving the Office of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation, the Body of Benchers, and other critical stakeholders. NEC reaffirmed that the bill strengthens the NBA’s central regulatory role, including increased representation on the Body of Benchers and the establishment of an Ethics, Adherence, and Enforcement Committee.
“The proposed committee is empowered to: “Investigate complaints against legal practitioners; inspect law offices and professional records; prosecute cases of professional misconduct; advise on ethical standards; and encourage alternative dispute resolution for minor complaints. NEC reiterated its support for key provisions of the bill, including: representation of the NBA President on the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee, LPPC; decentratisation of disciplinary proceedings; mandatory Continuing Professional Development, CPD; a two-year post-call training (pupillage) period; retention of the mandatory Stamp and Seal regime.
“NEC emphasized that regulatory authority flows from NBA regulations and that the bill does not transfer the power to issue practising licences to the Body of Benchers or the Attorney-General of the Federation.
“Concerns regarding erosion of Bar autonomy were addressed, with NEC affirming that the bill codifies and strengthens professional self-regulation, aligns Nigerian legal practice with global best practices, and enhances public confidence. NEC further noted ongoing engagements with the Attorney-General of the Federation aimed at refining aspects of the bill, including: Adjustment of mandatory pupillage from two (2) years to one (1) year; review of eligibility for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from 15 years to 10 years post-call; and clarification of NBA nomination rights to the LPPC.
“NEC reaffirmed that increased representation, ethics enforcement, CPD requirements, and other measures consolidate professional self-regulation while modernizing the profession has indeed become necessary,” the communiqué, which was jointly signed by the NBA President and General Secretary, Osigwe, SAN, and Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara, respectively, further read.
Osigwe, SAN, revealed that the NBA NEC meeting was attended by National Officers of the association, Past National Officers, SANs, Branch Chairmen and Secretaries, Chairmen and Secretaries of Sections and Fora, Co-opted NEC Members, as well as observers from across the country.
Meantime, the bill passed its first reading in the Senate on November 25, 2025 and proceeded to the second reading on December 3, 2025.
The Senate subsequently referred the bill to its Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, which held a public hearing on December 18, 2025.
Even though the Legal Practitioners Bill 2025 represents an effort towards a paradigm shift that will ensure stricter regulation, structured licensing, enhanced discipline, and greater public accountability, calls for a review to expunge provisions considered detrimental to the practice of law in the country remain loud.
