The dispute rocking the Nigerian Bar Association’s electoral committee work took an international dimension during the week as Amnesty International condemned what it described as interference of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, in the NBA Electoral Subcommittee work.
The dispute gets a wider dimension after the NBA rejected the comment made by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN on a document purported to be a report of a sub-committee of the NBA set up to amicably resolve issues raised by some contestants from the West Zone of the country whose turn it is to produce the NBA President.
According to the NBA, the minister had in his comment allegedly ordered
(a) the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association and postponement of the election of national officers.
(b) The termination of the appointment of the current service provider because he is a sole proprietor and the appointment of a new service provider.
(C) The setting of a caretaker committee to conduct the elections of national officers.
(d) The incorporation of “NIN” in the data of voters in the conduct of the NBA election.
(e) The “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution to take away universal suffrage, etc.
But NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe SAN said the directive is entirely unconstitutional, ultra vires the powers of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, and an attempt to bring the Nigerian Bar Association under the control of the office of the Honourable Attorney General.
According to the NBA, the resolution of the meeting of 11th June 2026 is that sub-committee is to
report to the entire body at a reconvened meeting. He argued that from the face of the purported report, “it is clear that none of these persons who attended the 11th June 2026 meeting were availed a copy of the purported report or made any input to the purported report.
“Assuming without conceding that they have received the report, the meeting cannot give the directions, as it violates the Legal Practitioners Act and the Nigerian Bar Association Constitution.
“Until the Honourable Attorney General reconvenes another meeting after the 11th June 2026, Meeting to consider the report of the sub-committee, there cannot be any decision.
“If the sub-committee were empowered to review the issues contained in the Report, Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN, who is the proponent of the cases of the plaintiffs, cannot Chair such a sub-committee, as he is clearly bias and has lost any neutrality to enable a sub-committee chaired by him to propose a
resolution to these cases.
“There is no way the Nigerian Bar Association would have agreed that a person who is biased over one of the parties should head any committee considering his partisan role in the entire matter.
“This report, which is said to have been purportedly accepted by the Honourable Attorney General, is unacceptable owing to its source,” he stated.
Following the ensuing controversy, Amnesty International issued a statement warning the Nigerian government to stop interfering in the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) national election.
The human rights group said that any federal attempt to control the bar’s internal affairs undermines the rule of laws and the independence of the legal profession.
It further stated that the NBA is an independent professional body, not a government department. Amnesty International stated that the federal government lacks the legal authority to manage the bar’s internal governance.
Therefore, it demands that the scheduled elections proceed without federal intervention.
But the African Bar Association (AfBA) yesterday, in a statement signed by Nicholas Sumba, Director, Publicity and Protocol, Nairobi, Kenya, accused Amnesty International of unwarranted intervention in the Nigerian Bar Association internal election dispute.
According to its statement that was made available to journalists in Abuja, AfBA expressed its profound disappointment at the statement issued by Amnesty International concerning the intervention of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, in the ongoing NBA electoral dispute.
However, the statement clarified that the Attorney General’s intervention, as publicly communicated, amounted to suggestions intended to facilitate an amicable, lawful, and institutional resolution of a dispute affecting Nigeria’s foremost professional legal
association.
Such efforts neither constituted coercion nor usurpation of the NBA’s autonomy but reflected the legitimate interest of the Chief Law Officer of the Federation in promoting respect for the rule of law and institutional stability.
It added that it is against this background, “AFBA finds Amnesty International’s characterisation of the Attorney General’s intervention as “interference” to be both unwarranted and misplaced.”
“Amnesty International has earned global recognition for its work in the promotion and protection of internationally recognised human rights through research, documentation, advocacy, and campaigns against human rights violations.”
AfBA said that internal electoral disagreements within a professional association and policy suggestions offered by a public official towards their peaceful resolution do not ordinarily engage the human rights mandate for which Amnesty International is internationally respected, unless there are demonstrable allegations of violations of fundamental rights protected under domestic or international law.
By entering a debate that principally concerns institutional governance and professional self-regulation, Amnesty International risks extending its public advocacy beyond the sphere of its recognised competence.
Such interventions may inadvertently politicize issues that are better addressed through established legal and institutional processes and may undermine
the organisation’s perceived impartiality on matters that genuinely implicate human rights.
The African Bar Association reiterates its unwavering commitment to the independence of the legal profession, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes through constitutional and institutional mechanisms.
We encourage all stakeholders to approach the NBA electoral process with restraint, fidelity to the Association’s Constitution, Bar Leaders and Elders, institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution, and respect for due process.
AFBA respectfully calls upon Amnesty International to exercise institutional restraint and to remain focused on its globally acknowledged mandate of protecting and promoting human rights. Preserving the clarity of that mandate strengthens the credibility and effectiveness of the organisation in addressing the grave human rights challenges confronting Nigeria, Africa, and the wider international community.
The African Bar Association remains committed to constructive engagement with all institutions dedicated to justice, democracy, and the rule of law, while affirming that interventions in matters of professional governance should be guided by competence, legal principle, and respect for institutional boundaries, it said.
Leave a Reply