By Sylvester Udemezue

The Ibadan Court Order, Constitutional Supremacy, and the Limits of Regional Political Influence in NBA Presidential Elections

(1). Introduction

Reports that the High Court of Oyo State sitting in Ibadan, presided over by Honourable Justice Y. S. Adekunle in Suit No. I/205/2026, directed the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to adopt Aare Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN (reportedly adopted by Egbe Amofin O’odua) as the sole candidate for the forthcoming NBA presidential election have generated widespread debate within the legal community.

The controversy raises fundamental legal questions concerning the constitutional framework governing NBA elections, the powers of regional fora such as Egbe Amofin O’odua, the principle of universal suffrage within the NBA, and the limits of judicial intervention in the democratic processes of voluntary professional associations.

These issues must be examined not through regional politics but through the binding provisions of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association, 2015 (as amended in 2025). For lawyers, whose profession is anchored on constitutionalism and the rule of law, nothing must supersede the supremacy of the Association’s Constitution.

(2). The Constitutional Framework Governing NBA National Elections

The NBA Constitution establishes a universal suffrage system conducted through electronic voting. Section 10(6) provides that “Election into National Offices shall be by universal suffrage and electronic voting as set out in the Second Schedule to this Constitution.” The implication is clear: the electorate is not limited to regional bodies, caucuses, or delegates. Rather, all eligible members of the NBA constitute the electoral college. Section 4(1)(b) further provides that any member who fails to pay Annual Practising Fees on or before 31 March loses the right to vote or be voted for. Accordingly, the NBA electorate consists of lawyers who have paid their practising fees and branch dues. Section 10(1) vests responsibility for conducting elections exclusively in the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), while Section 10(2) provides that the procedures governing elections are set out in the Second Schedule. There is therefore NO constitutional provision empowering any regional forum (such as Egbe Amofin O’Odua) or a court of law to determine who must emerge as NBA President.

(3). Historical Context of Universal Suffrage In The NBA

Before 2015, NBA elections were conducted through a delegate system, where branch representatives voted on behalf of members. This system concentrated electoral power in the hands of a limited number of delegates. The 2015 constitutional reform introducing universal suffrage and electronic voting fundamentally transformed this structure by allowing every financially compliant lawyer to vote directly. This reform significantly expanded democratic participation within the Association and placed ultimate electoral authority in the hands of the entire membership. Any process, political or judicial, that restricts electoral choices risks undermining this constitutional reform.

(4). The Constitutional Status Of Egbe Amofin O’odua

Egbe Amofin O’odua is a respected and influential association of lawyers of Yoruba extraction. It has historically served as a forum for consultations, mentorship, and promotion of candidates from the South-West. There is nothing unconstitutional about such political engagement. In democratic systems, political groups are free to organise and support candidates. However, Egbe Amofin is not a constitutional organ of the NBA. The Constitution recognises organs such as (a). the General Meeting, (b). the National Executive Council, (c). the National Executive Committee, (d). the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA).

Regional professional associations are not decision-making organs under the NBA Constitution. Accordingly, while Egbe Amofin may adopt and support a candidate, it cannot impose a candidate on the NBA electorate.

(5). The Constitutional Limits of Resolutions of Regional Bodies

Recent discussions within the Nigerian Bar have highlighted concerns regarding the implications of resolutions purportedly adopted by regional bodies concerning NBA presidential elections. It is important to state clearly that regional resolutions cannot override constitutional provisions. The Constitution of the NBA is the supreme legal framework governing the affairs of the Association. Any act, decision, or resolution inconsistent with the Constitution must necessarily yield to the Constitution. Thus, even if a regional forum, such as Egbe Amofin, adopts a candidate through consensus, such adoption cannot (a). prevent other qualified lawyers from contesting the election, (b). compel other aspirants to withdraw from the race, or (c). bind the entire membership of the Nigerian Bar Association. At best, such adoption remains a political endorsement, not a constitutional command.

(6). NBA Constitutional Provisions On Power-Rotation And Democratic Competition

The idea of rotational presidency within the NBA has evolved over time as a political convention, and later as a constitutional provision, designed to promote regional balance within the leadership of the Association. The arrangement is useful in maintaining a sense of inclusion within the diverse Nigerian Bar. This is why it is also recognised in the Constitution (see Section 10(5)). However, where the presidency rotates to a particular region/zone, the constitutional framework still permits multiple candidates from that region/zone to contest the election. By virtue of Section 9(3) of the NBA Constitution, where the office of the NBA President is rotated to a particular Zone, any lawyer from that Zone who (1). has paid practising fees and branch dues for three consecutive years (including the election year), (2). is in private legal practice, (3). has previously served as a member of the National Executive Council for at least two years, and (4). is not less than fifteen years post-call, is constitutionally qualified to contest the office (of the NBA President). Adoption by any person or section, or regional group plays no role whatsoever as a qualifying factor for election into any NBA office. Indeed, in the 2026 election cycle, following the constitutional provisions on rotation among Zones (and internal rotation within sub-zones), the presidency is expected to emerge from the South-West geopolitical zone. However, this does not mean that only one lawyer from the South-West is entitled to contest. Every qualified lawyer from that region retains the full constitutional right to aspire to the office. The final decision must be made by the entire electorate of the Nigerian Bar Association through universal suffrage.

(7). The Limits of Judicial Intervention In NBA’s Internal Electoral Processes

Courts of law play a critical role in safeguarding legality and protecting rights within voluntary or professional associations such as the NBA. However, judicial intervention must always be exercised with caution, especially where such intervention affects internal democratic processes. Professional associations thrive on institutional autonomy and internal democracy. If a judicial order has the practical effect of limiting the electoral choices available to thousands of lawyers across Nigeria, such consequences must be carefully examined against the constitutional provisions governing the Association. Courts must always strive to preserve, not inadvertently distort, the democratic architecture established by the governing constitution of the institution concerned. If regional bodies such as Egbe Amofin were permitted to impose candidates on the NBA through resolutions or litigation, the consequences could be troubling. Other regional or sectional fora, such as the Eastern Bar Forum, Arewa Lawyers Forum, the Midwest Bar Forum, the Young Lawyers Forum, MULAN, CLASFON, NACL, BOSAN, and other sectional groups, could attempt similar strategies. The result would be multiple competing claims over the same election, potentially leading to institutional chaos. The Nigerian Bar Association cannot function effectively if its electoral process becomes subject to fragmented sectional control. The Supreme Court of Nigeria has consistently maintained that courts must exercise restraint in matters relating to the internal affairs of voluntary associations. In Onuoha v. Okafor (1983) 2 SCNLR 244, the Supreme Court held that issues relating to internal selection of candidates within an organisation are generally non-justiciable. This principle was reaffirmed in Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310, where the Court emphasised that courts are not established to determine who should emerge as leader or candidate within an association except where the governing constitution has been breached. Similarly, in Emenike v. PDP (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1315) 556, the Supreme Court reiterated that where an organisation’s constitution provides a procedure for selecting candidates, courts will intervene only where that procedure has been violated. These authorities underscore a fundamental constitutional principle: the courts are guardians of legality, not substitutes for the democratic processes established by the constitution of an association. Accordingly, the NBA, like every voluntary association, enjoys autonomy over its internal affairs. Unless it is shown that the association has violated its own Constitution or the law, the courts will not interfere. Courts do not substitute their own judgment for that of a political party or voluntary association in matters within their internal domain. See Alhaji Balarabe Musa v. Peoples Redemption Party (1981) 2 NCLR 763 at 769.
Similarly, in Ogboro v. Registered Trustees of Lagos Polo Club (2016) LPELR-40061(CA), the Court of Appeal held (per Nimpar, JCA) that “when one joins a voluntary association, he must be prepared to abide by the rules and regulations of the association.” See also Mbanefo v. Molokwu (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1153) 431.

Consequently, a court has no power to amend, add to, or subtract from the Constitution of a voluntary organisation, nor to depart from its clear provisions in search of a convenient interpretation. See Omatseye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017) LPELR-42719(CA); Aromolaran v. Agoro (2014) LPELR-24037 (SC); and Adewunmi v. Attorney‑General of Ekiti State (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt.751) 474.

The Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty And The Electoral Sovereignty Of NBA Members

At a deeper level, the NBA electoral system reflects the democratic principle of popular sovereignty: the idea that ultimate authority resides in the people. Within the NBA, that sovereignty resides in financially compliant members across Nigeria. By adopting universal suffrage and electronic voting, the NBA has constitutionalised the principle that the presidency of the Association derives legitimacy from the collective will of its members, not from regional endorsement. Regional consultations may influence politics, but they cannot replace the sovereign electoral will of the Bar.

(9). Conclusion

The constitutional framework of the Nigerian Bar Association leaves no room for ambiguity. Elections into national offices are conducted through universal suffrage and electronic voting, and the electorate consists of all financially compliant members of the Bar across Nigeria. The Constitution vests responsibility for conducting elections exclusively in the ECNBA. Regional associations, professional caucuses, and political forums may legitimately organise consultations, endorse candidates, and campaign vigorously for their preferred aspirants. Such political activity is part of the democratic culture of any vibrant professional body. However, these endorsements remain political expressions of preference, not constitutional determinations of leadership. The presidency of the Nigerian Bar Association cannot therefore be determined by regional adoption, caucus resolutions, or sectional endorsements or the courts. It can only be determined through the constitutional mechanism of universal suffrage, in which eligible lawyers across Nigeria freely exercise their voting rights. Ultimately, the sovereignty of the Nigerian Bar Association resides not in regional blocs, not in political caucuses, and not in court orders nor in judicial directives, but in the collective will of its members expressed through the ballot. That constitutional principle lies at the heart of the democratic identity of the Nigerian Bar Association and must remain inviolate.

• Sylvester Udemezue (Udems) can be reached at udems@therealityministry.ngo

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.