A fresh controversy has erupted within the Nigerian Bar Association following a petition by its President, Afam Osigwe, against legal practitioners involved in ongoing litigation over the 2026 NBA elections, with Ibrahim Lawal warning that the move poses a serious threat to due process and professional independence. In a detailed response, Lawal argued that resorting to disciplinary proceedings instead of established judicial remedies risks creating a dangerous precedent capable of undermining the authority of the courts, weakening legal advocacy, and introducing external pressures into matters properly reserved for judicial determination.

In Defence of Due Process: Why the current NBA boss petition against counsel is a dangerous precedent

By Ibrahim Lawal, Esq, MCIArb UK

I am Ibrahim Lawal, the First Claimant in the case in which an ex parte order was obtained restraining the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), from conducting the 2026 NBA National Officers Elections pending the determination of the substantive suit. The order was given on March 4, 2026 by Justice G.A Opayinka of an Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan.

Ordinarily, I would not be found engaging in public commentary on matters that are actively pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. The discipline of the Bar, and indeed the ethical restraint expected of counsel, demands that issues in contention be resolved within the sacred precincts of the courtroom, not in the domain of public discourse.

However, recent developments, particularly the petition authored by Afam Osigwe, SAN, to the Body of Benchers and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), have generated considerable controversy, not only within the legal profession but also in the wider public space. In the face of this growing misrepresentation of facts and procedure, I consider it necessary, in the interest of clarity and professional integrity, to set the record straight.

This intervention is not borne out of personal grievance, but from a duty owed to the profession to resist any attempt, however subtle, to erode the foundational principles upon which justice is administered.

The context: Advocacy, not misconduct

I was counsel in a matter where an ex parte order was granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, restraining certain actions pending the determination of the substantive suit. This is neither novel nor extraordinary. The grant of ex parte relief is a well-established feature of our legal system, designed to preserve the res and prevent irreparable harm where urgency so demands.

The propriety or otherwise of such an order is, by law, subject to review within the judicial process itself. Any aggrieved party retains the right to apply for its discharge, variation, or to challenge it on appeal.

It is therefore both surprising and troubling that instead of utilising these established legal remedies, the President of the NBA elected to initiate a disciplinary petition against counsel involved in the proceedings.

This approach fundamentally misconceives the nature of legal advocacy.
To act on the instructions of a client, to approach a court of competent jurisdiction, and to obtain relief in accordance with due process cannot, by any stretch of professional reasoning, amount to misconduct. If it does, then the very essence of legal practice is imperiled.

A petition that undermines Judicial authority

The petition, with respect, is not merely unmeritorious, it represents a direct affront to the sanctity of judicial procedure.

The issues raised therein are the very issues submitted for adjudication before the court. To invite external bodies to pronounce on those same issues is to create a parallel adjudicatory framework, one that risks prejudicing the proceedings and undermining the authority of the court.

Such a course of action is inconsistent with the doctrine of fair hearing. It exposes opposing counsel to extraneous pressures and suggests an attempt to achieve, through administrative means, what ought properly to be pursued through judicial channels.

If this practice is allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent where litigants dissatisfied with interim orders routinely resort to disciplinary bodies as instruments of tactical advantage. That is not the purpose for which those bodies were established.

On the misrepresentation of professional conduct

A careful examination of the grounds advanced in the petition reveals a conflation of two distinct concepts: forensic advocacy and professional misconduct.

The allegations appear to revolve around the procurement of an ex parte order and the representations made in support thereof. Yet, these are matters squarely within the competence of the court to evaluate. Courts are well equipped to determine whether there has been suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, or abuse of process.

To escalate such issues into disciplinary complaints is to misunderstand the threshold for professional misconduct. Not every contested argument, nor every unfavourable order, can or should be recast as an ethical violation.

If that line is blurred, the consequence will be a chilling effect on advocacy, where counsel become hesitant to act robustly for fear of personal repercussions outside the courtroom.

The question of timing and institutional propriety

Equally concerning are the surrounding circumstances that give rise to legitimate questions about propriety and fairness.

The sequence of events, including the NBA President’s actions affecting the status of one of the senior counsel involved in this case, Jubrin Okutepa, SAN, within the Body of Benchers, when viewed alongside the petition, creates an unfortunate impression of pre-judgment and institutional overreach.

Furthermore, public disclosures indicating the nomination of key electoral officials to the Body of Benchers at a time when the integrity of the electoral process is under scrutiny raise serious concerns about the appearance of neutrality. In matters of this nature, perception is as critical as reality. Institutions must not only act fairly, they must be seen to act fairly.

The proper role of disciplinary bodies

The Body of Benchers and the LPDC occupy a vital place in maintaining professional standards. Their processes are designed to address clear cases of ethical breach, fraud, dishonesty, gross misconduct, not to serve as alternative forums for resolving disputes that are already before the courts.

It is my respectful submission that this petition falls outside that mandate.
To entertain it would be to expand the jurisdiction of these bodies into areas better left to judicial determination, thereby risking institutional overreach and unintended consequences for the profession as a whole.

A personal note on professional responsibility

As a legal practitioner, I remain committed to the highest standards of the profession. My actions in the matter in question were guided solely by my duty to my client and my obligation to the court. I harbour no ill will towards any party. Nor do I seek to personalise what is, at its core, a matter of principle.

However, I cannot remain silent where actions are taken that, if left unchallenged, may weaken the very system we are all sworn to uphold.

Conclusion

This episode presents the legal profession with an opportunity for introspection. We must ask ourselves whether we wish to uphold a system where disputes are resolved through established judicial mechanisms, or one where parallel processes are invoked to exert pressure and influence outcomes. The answer, I believe, is self-evident.

The petition in question should, in the interest of justice and professional integrity, be discountenanced. Not because it affects particular individuals, but because of the precedent it seeks to establish.

The strength of the Bar lies not in the power of its officers, but in the fidelity of its members to principle. It is that fidelity we must now defend

Mr. Ibrahim Lawal, the first claimant in the case under discussion, is the Chairman of the Ibadan Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)