A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, and Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) President, Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN) clashed yesterday.

It follows Osigwe’s petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over alleged ethical breaches by Okutepa in lawsuits challenging the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA).

NBA, at its National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting in Benin, constituted the ECNBA and tasked it with overseeing the association’s forthcoming election in July.

Critics, including Okutepa, argue the process was “unconstitutional,” “whimsical, autocratic, and despotic.”

Two suits filed against the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA and others are pending before the High Court of Justice, Oyo State, sitting in Ibadan (Suit No. I/221/2026 and a companion case).

Ex parte orders granted in one suit restrained the ECNBA from functioning, potentially disrupting the NBA’s electoral timeline.

Okutepa serves as lead counsel for the claimants, a role he defends as a pursuit of “truth with courage.”

Osigwe, as NBA President and a defendant, petitioned the LPDC, igniting accusations of intimidation by Okutepa.

In a statement, Okutepa portrayed the petition as a premeditated attack.

“It has come to my knowledge that… Osigwe… has written a petition against me to the Hon Body of Benchers and or the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

“But before his petition is served on me, he has found me guilty already,” he wrote.

Okutepa added: “He was part and parcel of the NBA regime that engineered petitions to LPDC against those who disagreed with them in 2015 or so.

“I was the Chief Prosecutor of NBA at LPDC then. I refused to be used. Weaponisation of petitions… has been their stock in trade.”

Okutepa further alleged abuse of office, claiming Osigwe lobbied to exclude him from the Body of Benchers renewal despite his 2023 appointment under Section 3(1)(l) of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 (as amended) and “excellent reports.”

“NBA President in abuse of power, used his position in concert with those who do not mean well for the legal profession to engineer the non-inclusion of my name,” he stated.

Dismissing fears, Okutepa affirmed: “Let me use this medium to inform Mr. President of the NBA that I am a legal practitioner and a trained advocate.

“No amount of intimidation, including his underground interference… can stop me from acting as lead counsel.”

He challenged Osigwe’s Benin NEC references: “His references to me… should be a pointer to him that no amount of panel-beating of the minutes…can erase the eye witness accounts of what we saw him do.”

In a rejoinder, Osigwe expressed “more amusement than anger,” refuting claims of forgery, abuse, or vendetta.

“The petition to the LPDC is not about whether Chief Okutepa had the right to accept a brief or challenge the constitution of the [ECNBA]. That right is unquestionable.

“The issue, rather, concerns the manner in which that right was exercised and whether…ethical obligations owed to the court, particularly in ex parte proceedings, were fully observed.”

Osigwe detailed that Benin NEC records indicate that, following deliberations, a motion to constitute the ECNBA was formally moved by Chief Richard Oma Ahonaruogho (SAN), seconded by Mr. Clever N. Owhor, and adopted by NEC.

He said Okutepa was present throughout, including presenting a report.

He cited video recordings and an “unchallenged” communiqué.

“This raises an important professional question: where counsel personally witnessed the constitution… does the failure to disclose those facts in an ex parte application not call for scrutiny?”

Invoking Rule 24(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Osigwe stressed that a lawyer is not permitted to rely solely on client instructions where he knows that material facts are being withheld or misrepresented.

He argued that any omission goes directly to the integrity of the judicial process.

Commenting on Benchers’ renewal, he explained that the NBA merely exercised its discretion not to recommend his renewal in light of the pending petition.

Osigwe said it would have been inconsistent to recommend for re-appointment a person whose conduct it had simultaneously referred for disciplinary scrutiny.

Osigwe urged deference to LPDC: “The petition is therefore an institutional step taken in good faith. It is not a personal attack…

“The determination of these issues should properly lie with the disciplinary process, not in the arena of public debate.” (The Nation)

Update news