The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has firmly rejected a purported report and alleged directives attributed to the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) seeking to alter the ongoing process for the 2026 NBA National Officers’ Election, insisting that only the Association’s National Executive Council (NEC) has the constitutional authority to postpone the election.
In a press release dated July 7, 2026, and signed by NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, the Association said it had become aware of a document purporting to contain the report of a sub-committee and comments by the AGF directing, among other things, the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), postponement of the election of national officers, termination of the appointment of the current election service provider, constitution of a caretaker committee, inclusion of National Identification Number (NIN) in the voting process, and a “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution to eliminate universal suffrage.
The Association described the alleged directives as unconstitutional, ultra vires and an attempt to subject the NBA to the control of the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation. It maintained that the NBA is an independent professional body whose affairs cannot be directed by the AGF except in circumstances expressly provided under Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, none of which, it said, currently exists.
The NBA also questioned the authenticity and legal basis of the purported directives, noting that the issues contained in the document mirror the reliefs being sought in the pending Egbe Amofin suits before the High Court of Oyo State. According to the Association, the Attorney-General, whether acting as Chief Law Officer of the Federation or as a mediator in the dispute, lacks the authority to grant reliefs that are already before a court or issue binding directives to parties involved in ongoing litigation.
Addressing the report of the sub-committee, the NBA stated that the committee was established solely to facilitate discussions with the disputing parties with a view to securing the withdrawal of the lawsuits. It argued that the committee exceeded its mandate by making findings and criticisms against the NBA President despite the fact that he was neither a candidate in the election nor afforded an opportunity to respond to allegations contained in memoranda submitted by some candidates. The Association described the process as a violation of the constitutional right to fair hearing.
The Association further maintained that resolutions reached at the meeting held on 11 June 2026 required the sub-committee to report back to the entire body at a reconvened meeting before any decision could be taken. It noted that no such meeting had been convened and that participants at the June meeting had neither received nor considered the purported report. Consequently, it argued that no valid decision or directive could have emerged from the process.
The NBA also questioned the neutrality of the sub-committee, arguing that Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who reportedly chaired it, could not be regarded as an impartial arbiter because of his involvement in matters relating to the pending litigation. The Association contended that the report was tainted by bias and cited judicial authorities on the importance of fairness and impartiality in decision-making processes.
Reaffirming its position, the NBA declared that it remains an independent body not subject to the control or directives of the Attorney-General or any arm of government. It stressed that the 2026 NBA National Officers’ Election would proceed according to the timetable already released by the ECNBA, adding that suggestions made during mediation meetings could only become binding if accepted by all parties and could not be construed as enforceable directives.
The Association further stated that the Attorney-General was never empowered to interfere with the NBA’s democratic succession process or recommend amendments to its Constitution. It also expressed doubts about the authenticity of the purported report, pointing out that it was not issued on the official letterhead of the Attorney-General’s office and that no official communication had been received from the AGF confirming its contents.
On the proposal to introduce National Identification Number (NIN) verification into the voting process, the NBA disclosed that it had conducted a risk assessment following earlier concerns raised by a presidential candidate. According to the Association, introducing NIN authentication at this stage could disrupt the election because the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) platform may be unable to handle the anticipated volume of authentication requests during voting.
The NBA also defended the continued engagement of its current electronic voting service provider, dismissing arguments that the provider should be replaced because it is a sole proprietorship. It described such reasoning as discriminatory, noting that many legal practitioners, including members of the legal profession, operate successful sole proprietorships while delivering professional services.
Reiterating its commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law, the Association concluded that its internal affairs can only be regulated through the mechanisms established under the NBA Constitution. It maintained that the ECNBA has not been shown to have committed any wrongdoing since its inauguration and affirmed its resolve to ensure that the 2026 election proceeds in accordance with due process and the Association’s constitutional framework.