280
By John Azu
The Egbe Amofin O’odua, the umbrella body of lawyers of Yoruba extraction, has defended the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), over his intervention in the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) 2026 national officers’ election, describing criticisms against him by the NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), and other groups as unwarranted.
The body said Fagbemi’s recommendations on the election timetable were aimed at preserving the credibility and integrity of the electoral process rather than interfering in the affairs of the association.
The controversy followed a meeting convened by the AGF on June 11, 2026, involving past NBA presidents and counsel to parties in pending litigation over the election. At the meeting, Fagbemi advised the NBA National Executive Committee to postpone the election from the end of July to August to allow outstanding concerns to be resolved.
Among the issues identified were the compulsory use of the National Identification Number (NIN) for electronic voting, the withdrawal of pending court cases and concerns over the appointment of a service provider that had not previously conducted the NBA’s electronic elections.
However, Osigwe rejected the recommendation, describing it as unconstitutional and an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of an independent professional body. He argued that the Attorney-General lacked the statutory powers to issue such directives, citing Section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act.
Responding in a statement jointly signed by its Chairman, Aare Isiaka Abiola Olagunju (SAN), and Secretary, Prince Adetunji Oso (SAN), Egbe Amofin faulted the criticism directed at the Attorney-General and some senior members of the legal profession.
The group also criticised the NBA President’s rejection of the outcome of the June 11 meeting, particularly his objections to the composition of a three-member committee, which included former NBA President Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN).
According to the association, Osigwe’s position was “most unfortunate and misleading,” especially as he failed to attend a mutually agreed meeting held on June 23.
«”Unfortunately, among those who have been making denigrating and disparaging commentaries about the person and office of the HAGF, as well as some respected leaders of the Bar from the South-West are Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN; the Eastern Bar Forum (EBF); and the Mid-Western Bar Forum (MBF),” the statement said.»
«”Most unfortunately still, these vituperators, purveyors of commentaries, or opinion peddlers have chosen not to address, positively, realistically, and objectively any of the directions of the HAGF.”»
Egbe Amofin maintained that the Attorney-General’s recommendations were based on the report of the three-member committee constituted after the June 11 meeting attended by NBA past presidents dating back to 1998 and counsel representing parties in the pending legal disputes over the election.
The group noted that the meeting also considered issues arising from Suit Nos. I/205/2026, I/221/2026 and Appeal No. CA/B/110/2026, stressing that the NBA President did not participate in the deliberations.
Calling for restraint and adherence to democratic principles, the association urged members of the legal profession to prioritise the credibility of the NBA’s electoral process over sectional interests.
«”In closing, the Egbe wants to borrow from the recent admonition of a respected Nigerian to the NBA, to the effect that ‘the institutional credibility of the NBA is at stake. The process of our elections must be examined through the lens of Rule of Law, public confidence and democratic legitimacy. The NBA internal governance must be connected with the broader constitutional role of lawyers in the society. Lawyers cannot credibly demand democratic standards from others unless they uphold such standards within their own Association’,” the statement added.»
The NBA is expected to conduct its 2026 national officers’ election electronically, with the exercise drawing heightened attention following legal disputes over voter eligibility, election technology and the management of the electoral process. The disagreement has sparked debate within the legal community over the balance between preserving the association’s independence and ensuring that its elections meet acceptable standards of transparency, fairness and credibility.