The legal profession in Nigeria is anchored on a non-negotiable foundation — the supremacy of the rule of law. This principle imposes a binding obligation on all persons and institutions, but most especially on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), which occupies a privileged position as both regulator of legal practitioners and guardian of constitutional order.

It is therefore profoundly troubling that recent developments surrounding the NBA electoral process, under the leadership of Afam Osigwe, appear to place the Association in direct tension with settled principles of law governing pending litigation and obedience to judicial authority.

It is a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence that once a matter is submitted before a court of competent jurisdiction, parties are bound to refrain from taking steps that may prejudice the subject matter or foist a fait accompli on the court. See INEC v. YOUTH PARTY (2021) LPELR-54802(CA) (Pp. 48–53 paras. E). This principle finds its clearest and most authoritative expression in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu, where the Supreme Court condemned in strong terms any attempt — by any party — to overreach the court while a matter is pending. The import of that decision is simple and enduring: no person or institution, regardless of status, is permitted to act in a manner that undermines the authority or effectiveness of the court.

Against this settled principle, we submit that the continuation of ECNBA electoral activities despite pending suits raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Such conduct:

• risks presenting the court with a fait accompli;
• diminishes the practical authority of judicial intervention; and
• undermines public confidence in the legal system.

For an institution like the NBA, this is not a mere procedural misstep — it is a direct contradiction of the very ideals it exists to defend.

The contradiction is further deepened by the statement of Mr. Afam Osigwe SAN, threatening disciplinary measures against lawyers who institute actions said to draw courts into internal affairs, with reference to the Electoral Act 2022. With respect, that position is not only questionable — it is dangerous. The right to approach the court is a constitutional guarantee under Section 6 of the Constitution. It is not subject to the discretion or approval of any professional body. Whether a claim ultimately succeeds or fails is a matter for the court — not a basis for pre-emptive institutional intimidation.

In any event, the court cannot fold its arms and become helpless in the face of such misconduct — if it is indeed misconduct — without raising its hammer under Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution against such erring or misguided lawyers. It is not for the President to goad the court to do so.

To threaten lawyers for filing actions is to:

• chill access to justice;
• discourage legitimate grievance resolution; and
• undermine the central role of the judiciary.

The contradiction in the President’s position is therefore stark: on one hand, lawyers are warned or threatened for approaching the courts; on the other, the NBA proceeds with a process already subjected to judicial scrutiny. This is not merely inconsistent — it is fundamentally irreconcilable.

The principle in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu applies squarely: no party should take steps capable of overreaching the court once a matter is pending. An institution cannot discourage judicial recourse, yet act in a manner that makes such recourse inevitable.

More troubling is the apparent willingness to proceed with the electoral process despite unresolved legal challenges, possibly on the assumption that judicial resolution may not occur within the tenure of the present leadership. If that is the case, it reflects a conscious prioritization of expediency over legality, and institutional convenience over constitutional fidelity. Such an approach is incompatible with the role of the NBA as a custodian of the rule of law.

CONCLUSION

The actions attributed to the ECNBA, under the leadership of Afam Osigwe, if sustained, represent a serious departure from the fundamental principles that govern the legal profession. The contradiction in the President’s position is complete: he warns against judicial intervention, yet acts in a manner that necessitates it, and permits conduct that may undermine pending proceedings.

The rule of law is not selective. It binds all — individuals, institutions, and even the Bar itself.

For the Nigerian Bar Association, the choice is clear: uphold the law or undermine it. History — and the courts — will ultimately render judgment. And if this course persists, history will not be kind to Afam Osigwe if he midwifes a Bar soaked in disobedience to the court and the rule of law.

Idris Dokko Esq. Lagos Branch