The Nigerian Bar Association must decide, urgently and unequivocally, whether it will remain an institution governed by evidence and principle or descend into a theatre where accountability is answered with character assassination.

What is presently unfolding is neither subtle nor sophisticated. A senior member of the Bar, Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN, has publicly called for transparency and responsibility at the highest level of the Association, but now finds himself the subject of conveniently timed allegations of financial impropriety.

The sequence is instructive; he spoke, he questioned, demanded accountability and called for resignation of the NBA President .

And suddenly, a narrative emerged suggesting that he withdrew 126 USD from the MacArthur Foundation project account.

Let us put on our wigs and gowns and  interrogate this properly.

I. The MacArthur Foundation Allegation: An Accusation That Disintegrates Under Basic Scrutiny

The allegation is that Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed. SAN withdrew 126 USD from the MacArthur Foundation account. Before the rhetoric, emotions, and propaganda, let us examine whether this is probable and/or possible .

Who are the signatories to NBA accounts? The NBA Constitutions provides that; the following National Officers shall be signatories to all NBA accounts.

1. The President
2. The General Secretary
3. The Treasurer

Was there a change of this protocol in the MacArthur Project Account? The answer is No.

The Three eminent lawyers who occupy the offices at the material time  are still alive and can provide answer to disposal.

Those three officers are the only designated signatories to all NBA accounts, including the MacArthur Foundation project account.

Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN was the National Coordinator of the project/Chief of Staff to the President at the material time. No doubt he withed enormous power at the time, and arguably the face of the administration  because of his fidelity  and loyalty to his Principal A.B Mahmoud, SAN. He was the Defender-in-Chief of the administration and. He was never at any point in time, a signatory. He did not possess cheque-signing authority. He did not possess transfer authorisation powers. He did not have unilateral withdrawal capacity. So the questions are simple, direct, and unavoidable:

1. Did he sign a cheque?
2. Which cheque?
3. Where is the instrument?
4. Did he authorise a transfer?
5. Through what banking mandate?
6. Into which account was the alleged 126 USD paid?
7. Where is the memo requesting its release?
8. Who approved the memo?

These are germane questions for his transducers to answers.

Allegation without proof is  unsustainable; it is insinuation. It is not enough to say money moved. One must show who moved it, how it was moved, and by what authority it was moved. Until those proof are produced, the allegation remains precisely what it appears to be; retaliation dressed up as accountability. And it is a dangerous tactic especially within a profession that teaches first-year law students that he who alleges must prove.

II. The Timing Is Not Accidental

These accusations did not arise in a vacuum.

They surfaced only after Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN who left the office almost a decade ago publicly called for the resignation of the NBA President, Afam Osigwe, SAN over matters already in the public domain; Public complaints, public agitation, and public calls for transparency.

Instead of answering those substantive concerns with documentation and clarity, we are now invited to focus on an alleged 126 USD withdrawal by a non-signatory.

The Bar must ask itself soberly; “Is this coincidence or a strategy?

When the substance of criticism is difficult to confront, the temptation is always to discredit the critic. But the Nigerian Bar Association is not a WhatsApp group. It is an institution, and institutions do not defend themselves with diversion.

III. The 2,000 USD Distribution: Questions That Demand Answers, Not Deflection

Equally unsettling are the matters surrounding the alleged distribution of 2,000 USD to selected members of the NBA-NEC. These issues are already in the public domain. They have generated complaints, outrage and a Call for the resignation of the NBA President. And yet, rather than transparent disclosure, what we are witnessing is a counteroffensive against the one voice that insisted the matter be addressed. Let us therefore ask clearly, firmly, and without apology:

1. Who superintended the distribution of the money?
2. Was any representation made to recipients that the funds originated from the Borno State Government?
3. Was the Welfare Officer of the NBA positioned as paymaster?
4. Were any official insignia annexed to the bags containing the Dollar envelopes?
5. Did any national officers benefit from the Largesse?
6. If the funds were from a private individual, what was the lawful source of such foreign currency?
7. Was the transaction compliant with financial reporting thresholds under extant legislation?
8. Was the NBA President aware that selected members of his NEC were receiving cash gifts ?

These are not inflammatory questions. They are clear governance questions. The discomfort they generate is not proof of malice but of their relevance. While transparency answers questions, deflection multiplies them.

IV. The NEC Co-opted Members: Institutional Integrity at Stake

According to Mr. Adetunbi, SAN and in justifying the collection of the 2000 dollars Ättendance Fees” for selected members, the co-opted members of NEC were not funded by their branches to attend NEC meetings. So another issue that deserves serious reflection as against this needless dismissal is the practice of co-opting members into the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the NBA.

When co-opted members begin to appear, fairly or unfairly, as instruments for the numerical reinforcement of executive preferences, institutional confidence erodes. The perception — and perception is that statutory representatives are diluted by appointed allies. If that perception continues unchecked, the NBA risks something far more corrosive than criticism. It risks credibility and the Bar cannot afford to look like a political caucus. The NBA is not a party structure nor an electoral machine. We are an association of legal practitioners sworn to uphold due process and fairness. Thus if the internal architecture begins to resemble partisan consolidation rather than professional governance, we have a duty to say so. And saying so is not rebellion. It is responsibility.

V. Retaliation Is Not a Defense

The most troubling dimension of this episode is not even the allegation itself. It is the method.

Instead of addressing the concerns raised, propriety of the alleged distributions, and integrity of internal processes, we are presented with an attempt to stain the record of a Senior Advocate who was not even a signatory to the account in question. That is not rebuttal. It is at best, a retaliation and retaliation within a professional association sets a dangerous precedent. Today, it is Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN. Tomorrow, it could be any member who dares to question leadership.

If raising legitimate concerns invites personal attack, then silence becomes incentivised and institutions decay in silence.

VI. The Legal Standard Still Applies

Let us return to first principles.

In law, an allegation must satisfy three basic expectations:

1. It must be supported by evidence.

2. It must demonstrate authority and capacity.

3. It must survive logical scrutiny.

The MacArthur allegation fails at all three levels:

1. No evidence of signatory authority.
2. No proof of authorisation.
3. No documentary trail.

It is an accusation searching desperately for structure and in the absence of structure, what remains is suspicion weaponised for political utility. The Bar should vehemently reject that standard.

VII. This Is Bigger Than One Man

This is not merely about defending Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed,SAN

It is about defending the right of members of the Bar to:

1. Question leadership,
2. Demand transparency,
3. Insist on ethical governance,
4. Call for accountability from any office holder where circumstances justify it.

If the response to dissent is reputational attack, then the Association is not governed by law. It is governed by fear and fear has never strengthened an institution.

VIII. A Final Word

If there exists any proof that Dr. Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN, unlawfully withdrew 126 USD from the MacArthur Foundation account, let it be produced.

1. Produce the cheque.
2. Produce the transfer mandate.
3. Produce the approval memo.
4. Produce the banking instrument.

If none exists, then let this campaign of insinuation be recognized for what it is: a distraction from far more serious questions.

The Nigerian Bar Association must decide what standard it will uphold; evidence or expediency, transparency or retaliation, principle or personality.

The legal community is watching.

History is watching.

And the Bar must remember that credibility, once squandered, is not easily restored.

A concerned and well meaning member of an association asked questions. Instead of answering them, some have chosen to question his integrity. That choice, more than any press release or counter-accusation, will define this moment in the history of the Association.

The time for diversion is over.

Let the documents speak.

By T.A Ahmmed, Esq. Immediate Past Social Secretary, NBA Ilorin Branch.