- Inside the AGF’s bid to save the Bar
By Our Reporter
What began as disagreements over how to conduct the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) 2026 national elections, has snowballed into one of the most serious crises in the Association’s recent history.
Lawsuits have followed. So have allegations of bias against the leadership, constitutional disputes over the electoral process, and an unprecedented intervention by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), to restore peace within the legal profession.
A painstaking investigation by our reporter, based on confidential committee reports, official correspondence, court processes and interviews with key stakeholders, discovered that, by the time the Attorney-General intervened, the dispute had already moved beyond internal disagreement.
There was a lawsuit pending before the Oyo State High Court, appeals were before the Court of Appeal, and confidence in the electoral process had split sharply among members of the Bar.
Documents reviewed by Our Reporters show the crisis centres on several issues: questions over the neutrality of the NBA leadership, disputes over how the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) was constituted, concerns about the appointment of election service providers, and allegations of non-compliance with the NBA Constitution’s provisions on national elections.
It was against this backdrop that the Attorney-General entered the dispute, acting, he later said, in his capacity as Chief Law Officer of the Federation and official Leader of the Nigerian Bar. His goal was to broker an amicable settlement before the pending appeals were decided.
His peace initiative produced a stakeholders’ meeting attended by former NBA Presidents, the incumbent President, senior lawyers, and
representatives of the disputing parties.
That meeting set up a three-member committee, headed by former NBA President Chief Wole Olanipekun, CFR, SAN, with Prince Lanke Odogiyon and former NBA President Paul Usoro, SAN, as members. Their brief was to examine the issues and recommend how to restore confidence in the electoral process.
Allegations against the NBA President — and the evidence cited
The Committee’s majority report found that allegations against NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, had become a major flashpoint in the dispute. After reviewing memoranda from presidential aspirants and other stakeholders, along with photographs, video recordings and documentary exhibits, the majority concluded that the perception of bias against the President was “not without substantial foundation.”
Four strands of evidence were said to underpin that conclusion:
- Campaign materials at official events. The Committee examined campaign materials displayed at official NBA programmes, which it said fed the perception that the President’s neutrality had been compromised.
- Remarks on his own neutrality. Remarks attributed to the President concerning his impartiality in the election were among the exhibits reviewed by the Committee.
- Branding at Association programmes. The Committee also looked at campaign branding present at NBA events, which it linked to the broader pattern of concern.
- Use of official platforms. Perhaps most significant, the Committee examined the alleged use of official NBA platforms in support of a particular presidential aspirant — a claim that, if established, would go to the heart of the neutrality question.
Taken together, the majority report found, these developments contributed to a perception that undermined confidence in the neutrality of the electoral process even as it stopped short of a definitive finding of actual bias, framing its conclusion instead around the “substantial foundation” for that perception.
Beyond the President personally, the Committee questioned whether the ECNBA had been properly constituted, raised reservations about the election service providers, and recommended postponing the election, dissolving the ECNBA, and overhauling the electoral process.
The Committee did not speak with one voice. Paul Usoro, SAN, filed a minority report disagreeing with several findings, including those concerning the President. While conceding that concerns had been raised, he argued the Committee overstepped its mandate by ruling on matters already before the courts and by recommending steps not supported by the NBA Constitution. His dissent leaves open the question of how much weight the “substantial foundation” finding should carry, given it was not a unanimous conclusion.
After weighing both reports, the Attorney-General issued what he called “Directions and Outcomes” — measures meant to resolve the dispute and restore confidence in the process, issued in his capacity as Chief Law Officer and Official Leader of the Bar.
That intervention has only deepened the debate.
The NBA President has publicly rejected the AGF’s position, insisting only the Association’s constitutional organs can regulate its elections or decide whether they proceed or are postponed. He has also disputed parts of the Committee’s findings and questioned the legal weight of the Attorney-General’s directions.
The dispute has since widened beyond the original election controversy, into a broader argument over NBA autonomy, the limits of the Attorney-General’s intervention, and how internal disputes within professional associations should be resolved.
