your favourite divorce attorney

ONLY THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE NBA CAN DIRECT THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE 2026 NBA NATIONAL OFFICERS’ ELECTION Our attention has been drawn to a document which purports to be a Report of a Sub-Committee and the comments of the Honourable Attorney General which, amongst other things 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 up 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. The Nigerian Bar Association believes that the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation could not issue the said directive as it 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. For the record, the Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body not under the control of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation. By the provisions of section 10(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act, the only time a body distinct from the Nigerian Bar Association is empowered to interfere in the activities of the Nigerian Bar Association is stated clearly therein and none of the events have occurred as to entitle the Honourable Attorney General to take the position stated in the purported directive. We are strengthened in our belief that the Honourable Attorney General could not have given the purported directives when in fact the purported directives are no different from the reliefs sought in the two Egbe Amofin Cases pending at the High Court of Oyo State. Indeed, the Honourable Attorney General cannot grant reliefs sought in the two Egbe Amofin suits in his capacity as a convener of a mediation meeting or even as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation. The Honourable Attorney General is at best a party/mediator, and it is settled that a mediator does not give directives to the parties in a matter in which he is a party. All Past Presidents of the Nigerian Bar Association in attendance, to the exclusion of Chief Wole Olanipekun, were of the view that the cases initiated by Egbe Amofin are frivolous and should be withdrawn. It was therefore the decision of the attendees of the meeting that the Sub-Committee set up is to ONLY liaise with the contending parties for the purpose of overseeing the withdrawal of the actions. The Sub-Committee was never empowered to make any inquest as to the conduct of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association to the extent of making far-reaching condemnations against him when he is not a candidate in the election. Their reliance on the memos submitted by some candidates as the basis for those findings violates the constitutional safeguard of fair hearing as the President was never served with those memos to enable him make a response before such condemnations were made, assuming he was a necessary person to appear before the Sub-Committee. The resolution of the meeting of 11 June 2026 is that the Sub-Committee is to report to the entire body at a reconvened meeting. From the face of the purported report, it is clear that none of those who attended the 11 June 2026 meeting were availed a copy of the purported report or made any input to it. 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. 1/3