When scholarship yields to Partisan Advocacy: A response to Prof. Chidi Odinkalu’s commentary on the 2026 NBA elections 

By Alhaji Tajudeen Oladoja, SAN 

Professor Chidi Odinkalu is one of Nigeria’s most accomplished public intellectuals. His contributions to constitutionalism, human rights advocacy and public discourse are widely acknowledged and deserve respect.  

It is therefore with considerable disappointment that one reads his recent article entitled “NBA Decides 2026: What Future for an Independent Bar?” together with his subsequent commentary dismissing the proposal to incorporate the National Identification Number (NIN) into the authentication process for NBA elections. 

The disappointment does not arise because Professor Odinkalu has taken a position. Every lawyer is entitled to one. It arises because, on this occasion, advocacy appears to have displaced objectivity. The article is replete with historical inaccuracies, speculative assertions presented as established facts, incomplete narratives, and conclusions unsupported by the available evidence. 

What makes this particularly unfortunate is that Professor Odinkalu himself was among the fiercest critics of the integrity of NBA electronic elections in 2018. He famously described that election as “a racket,” insisting that the process lacked legitimacy because of credible allegations of manipulation and compromised electoral procedures.  

Those concerns were neither frivolous then nor imaginary now. Indeed, they remain substantially unresolved. It is therefore difficult to understand why proposals aimed at strengthening electoral transparency have suddenly become objects of ridicule merely because they do not align with the preferences of certain political tendencies within the Bar. 

The central issue before the Nigerian Bar Association today is not whether one supports Candidate A, Candidate B or Candidate C. The issue is whether the electoral process commands sufficient confidence to produce results that every contestant can accept as credible. That question should concern every conscientious lawyer irrespective of political affiliation. 

Unfortunately, Professor Odinkalu’s intervention diverts attention from this fundamental issue and instead attempts to portray legitimate concerns over electoral integrity as nothing more than an ethnic power struggle. That characterization is both inaccurate and unfair. 

Several assertions contained in his article require correction. First, Professor Odinkalu asserts that Egbe Amofin Oodua seeks to “elbow” other presidential candidates out of the race so that its preferred candidate may emerge unopposed. That is simply not an accurate reflection of Egbe’s position. 

The issues presently before the courts and before eminent stakeholders of the profession principally concern compliance with the NBA Constitution in constituting the Electoral Committee (ECNBA), the neutrality of the electoral process, the integrity of voter authentication, and the transparency of electronic voting.  

Whether one agrees with those arguments or not, they are constitutional and institutional questions deserving serious consideration. To reduce them to an alleged conspiracy to eliminate political opponents is to mischaracterise the dispute. 

Secondly, Professor Odinkalu attempts to portray micro-zoning as an unprecedented invention of Egbe Amofin. History says otherwise. 

Micro-zoning within the Western Zone has existed in one form or another since 2019 as an internal mechanism for equitable leadership distribution. More importantly, the historical narrative presented by Professor Odinkalu is itself inaccurate.  

He claims that both Chief Dele Adesina, SAN and Mr. Tunde Ajibade, SAN, who contested the 2020 NBA presidential election, came from outside the recognisedmicro-zone. That is demonstrably incorrect. Both eminent lawyers are from Ekiti State and belonged to the same recognised micro-zone. Historical facts should not be reshaped to support present political arguments. 

Equally misleading is the omission of the historical imbalance which gave rise to the micro-zoning arrangement. Within the Western Zone, one sub-zone has produced approximately nine NBA Presidents, another has produced about three, while the sub-zone from which Mr. Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN comes has produced only one President. Whether one agrees with micro-zoning or not, elementary fairness requires acknowledgment that it arose from concerns over equitable representation rather than ethnic domination. 

Professor Odinkalu also asserts that the report submitted by Chief Wole Olanipekun, CFR, SAN and Prince Lanke Odogiyan, SAN was “unsigned.” That assertion is incorrect. The report submitted to the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation was duly signed by its authors. Before making so categorical an assertion, elementary fairness required verification. Scholarly commentary ought not to substitute assumption for fact. 

Similarly inaccurate is the suggestion that the Honourable Attorney-General purported to “take over” the affairs of the NBA. The Attorney-General did no such thing. The meeting which produced the Committee arose within an ongoing mediation process involving all principal stakeholders, including former NBA Presidents, litigants, counsel and representatives of the Association itself. What eventually emerged from that process were Directions and Outcomes, not unilateral executive decrees.  

The Attorney-General, as the nation’s Chief Law Officer and traditionally the Leader of the Bar, facilitated a dispute-resolution process. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, it is intellectually inaccurate to portray them as an attempted governmental annexation of the NBA. 

Professor Odinkalu’s criticism of the proposal to incorporate NIN into the voter authentication process is perhaps the most surprising aspect of his intervention. 

Rather than engage the substance of the proposal, he dismisses it with colourful adjectives, describing it as “lazy”, “illiterate” and founded on imaginary concepts of “security numbers.” Such rhetoric unfortunately substitutes ridicule for analysis. 

The issue is not whether the Supreme Court Enrolment Number identifies lawyers. It undoubtedly does. The issue is whether it constitutes a sufficiently secure authentication credential in an era where manipulation of electronic identities has repeatedly been alleged. 

Experience from previous NBA elections demonstrates precisely why stronger authentication is necessary. Repeated complaints have arisen concerning alteration of email addresses, substitution of telephone numbers, diversion of voting credentials and unauthorisedharvesting of voter identities. Indeed, allegations of such practices have featured prominently in litigation and public commentary following successive NBA elections since the introduction of electronic voting. 

NIN addresses that vulnerability because it represents a unique biometric-based national identity already verified by law. Its incorporation does not replace the Supreme Court Enrolment Number; rather, it complements it by providing stronger authentication. Modern electoral systems worldwide increasingly rely upon multi-factor authentication because single-factor systems are inherently more susceptible to abuse. 

Professor Odinkalu argues that integrating NIN cannot be accomplished before the election. Yet no technical evidence is produced for that conclusion. Neither he nor anyone else has demonstrated that the NBA and the National Identity Management Commission are incapable of collaborating within a reasonable period to achieve secure authentication. Technical feasibility is a matter for technological experts, not speculation. 

More importantly, even assuming additional time were required, why should a modest postponement aimedsolely at ensuring a transparent election be regarded as an existential threat to the independence of the Bar? Elections have been postponed in Nigeria at both national and institutional levels whenever circumstances demanded it. Credibility has always been considered more important than rigid adherence to a date. 

Professor Odinkalu equally overlooks another critical fact. Every NBA election conducted under the present electronic voting framework has generated significant controversy, with several ending in protracted litigation. The persistence of those disputes should ordinarily persuade reform-minded lawyers to improve the system rather than defend its evident vulnerabilities. 

Finally, one must respectfully observe that Professor Odinkalu appears increasingly unable to separate his evident political preferences from objective institutional analysis. There is absolutely nothing improper in supporting any candidate in the forthcoming NBA election. Every member of the Bar enjoys that democratic right. What is undesirable is to present partisan advocacy as detached constitutional scholarship while attributing improper motives to those who hold contrary views. 

The Nigerian Bar deserves a conversation grounded in facts, constitutional fidelity and institutional integrity, not selective history, speculative assertions or rhetorical flourishes. 

Those of us who have consistently criticised defects in NBA elections did so in 2018, repeated the same concerns in 2020 and 2024, and continue to do so in 2026 irrespective of who benefits politically. Our concern has never been about personalities; it has always been about processes. Institutions endure only when their processes command public confidence. 

The integrity and independence of the Nigerian Bar will not be preserved by dismissing legitimate calls for electoral reform or by caricaturing those who advocate improvements. They will be preserved by ensuring that every lawyer votes under a process that is transparent, secure, constitutionally compliant and beyond reasonable suspicion. That, and not partisan polemics, is the true future of an independent Bar. 

Alhaji Tajudeen Oladoja, SAN is a Distinguished Bar Leader and a  Life Bencher.