The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has rejected the directive in a document circulating that claims the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi has ordered the postponement of the association’s 2026 National Officers’ election, describing the report as unconstitutional and beyond the AGF’s authority.

In a statement signed by NBA President, Afam Osigwe, the association reacted to a Sub-Committee report and comments attributed to the Attorney General allegedly directing the disbandment of the NBA’s Electoral Committee, the postponement of the national officers’ election, the removal of the current election service provider on the grounds that he is a sole proprietor, the appointment of a caretaker committee to run the election, the incorporation of National Identification Numbers into the voter data, and a “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution to eliminate universal suffrage.

The NBA rejected the directive stating that the association operates independently of the Attorney General’s office and while citing the Legal Practitioners Act, it said outside interference in NBA affairs is permitted only under specific statutory conditions, none of which it says have been met.

The association also linked the alleged directive to two pending cases before the Oyo State High Court, arguing that the Attorney General has no power to unilaterally grant the reliefs sought in that litigation.

According to the NBA, attendees of a June 11, 2026 meeting had authorized the Sub-Committee only to help broker a withdrawal of the litigation, not to investigate the conduct of the NBA president or issue binding findings against him.

The statement said the president was never given the underlying memos used to reach those conclusions, raising fair-hearing concerns, and that the Sub-Committee’s chairman, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, was conflicted given his role as counsel for one of the parties.

The NBA’s statement reads in part: “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 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.

‎”We are by this press release stating categorically that: The Nigerian Bar Association is an independent body not subject to the control and directive of the office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation or any other arm of government. The NBA National Officers’ electoral process shall continue as scheduled by the ECNBA. At no time was the Honourable Attorney General empowered to issue directives that are capable of truncating the democratic succession process of the NBA or even suggest a “recalibration” of the NBA Constitution.

‎”The Nigerian Bar Association is a body that has clear decision-making organs and can only subject itself to its constitutional mechanisms. The office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation is not one of them.” (The Sun)

Update news