Controversy is trailing the reversal of disqualification of a candidate for the position Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Port Harcourt Branch by the NBA Branch Elections Appeal Committee (East).

CITY LAWYER investigation shows that Mr. Ohaka Egburuwhuo was disqualified by the branch Electoral Committee (ELECO) on the basis that his nominator did not meet the attendance requirement set out in the NBA Uniform Bye-Laws.

CITY LAWYER recalls that the NBA leadership recently warned Northern branches to ensure strict compliance with the attendance requirement failing which it would cancel the election. This suggests that the NBA may have oversight powers over the branch elections.

In justifying Ohaka’s disqualification, the ELECO argued that he fell short of the requirements in Article 14 paragraph 2 of the NBA Uniform Bye Law which provides that “To be eligible to stand for election into an office,a member shall: (a) Be validly nominated in writing by two members who are eligible to vote herein and who must themselves be qualified for the particular office as provided for in these Byelaws.”

The ELECO stated that “Our Committee’s conclusion/decision that the Petitioner had fallen short of the requirement of the above provision and his subsequent disqualification was based on failure of one of his nominators Mr. David Gbaimeza Uduru to meet the mandatory threshold of attendance at five (5) meetings within one (1) year preceding the close of nominations….”

The committee also stated that “Whilst the petitioner and his nominators did not have issues with their respective financial standing with the Branch, we observed upon a careful examination of the handwritten Attendance Register that Mr. David Gbaimeza Uduru with Branch membership No. 2012/278 the petitioner’s second Nominator recorded only three (3) attendance during the period under consideration. We confirmed from the said record that he attended the meetings held in January, February and March 2026, only. This attendance fell short of the attendance threshold of five (5) hence our decision not to clear him to contest.

“Respectfully, we are of the firm view that attendance at Branch meetings is determined by proper endorsement of the Attendance Register, which includes the member’s name, unique Branch Identification Number, signature, address, and phone number. It is important to emphasize that the Branch Identification Number is unique to each member and is of critical importance in verifying and reckoning attendance.

“Our scrutiny of the Attendance Register revealed that Mr. David Gbaimeza Uduru (Branch Identification No. 2012/278), recorded attendance only for the months of January, February, and March 2026 only, therefore we firmly deny the claim that he attended 6 branch meetings within the period.

“Contrary to the claims of the petitioner, the Register shows that in April 2025, the name listed as No. 201 Attendance Register is Excel Leesi (Branch No. 2015/405) and not Mr. David Gbaimeza Uduru. However, in the record of attendance for the Branch General Meeting of April 2025, there is an entry at No. 162 bearing the name “David Gbaimeza Uduru” with Branch Identification Number. 2010/091. Whilst this entry is consistent with the content of the document described by the petitioner as APPENDIX 2 and submitted to this Committee for as proof of attendance in April 2025, it differs materially from Mr. David Gbaimeza’s correct Branch Identification Number (2012/278) which is contained in the Nomination Form (Appendix 1 above). Additionally, the Year of Call for Mr. David Gbaimeza is 2012, not 2010 as shown on this entry. Accordingly, we could not in good faith reach the conclusion that this entry is evidence of attendance by the said Mr. David Gbaimeza.

“A closer examination of the register also shows that: (a) The signatures in the said documents are also inconsistent with the one in the Nomination Forms submitted to our Committee as well as the Specimen submitted to us by Mr. David Gbaimeza Uduru himself, a copy of which respectfully annexed hereto as Annexure E3.

“In response to allegations of the petitioner at paragraph 2.6 of his process, it is our respectful contention that our Committee was more inclined to relying on the primary document which is the actual handwritten Attendance Register of the Branch which clearly reveals the facts aforesaid in paragraph 7 above than uncertified printouts presented to this Committee as the Attendance Records of the Branch during the given period. We further submit with profound respect that the uncertified and computer printouts referred to as ANNEXURES 2, 3 and 4 relied and urged upon this August Committee cannot displace the contents of the handwritten Attendance Register of the Branch which is the primary evidence of the facts therein.”

Saying that the Ohaka and his nominator were given fair hearing by the ELECO, the committee alleged that “We have also observed that the Petitioner appears to be manufacturing/doctoring documents he claims to be the attendance of the Branch.”

The committee warned that “Even in the unlikely event that this Committee gives any credence to the said printouts relied upon by the petitioner, it is our firm view that the contents therein which show incomplete Branch Identification Numbers which are also different and inconsistent with that of Mr. David Gbaimeza Uduru cannot and ought not be accepted as proof of his attendance to the said meetings.”

But Ohaka contested his disqualification before the NBA Election Appeal Committee.

In its ruling, the Appeal Committee held that “After a meticulous look at the Attendance Registers of the NBA Port Harcourt meetings for the months of April, May and October 2025, we discovered that the name, David Gbaimeza Uduru Esq appeared on the Attendance Registers for each of the months, which was disregarded by the Election Committee.”

While admitting “inconsistencies with respect to the Membership Number of David Gbaimeza Uduru Esq as seen on the Attendance Register for the months of April, May and October, 2025,” the Appeal Committee curiously held that once the minutes and the attached attendance lists are adopted at the branch meeting, “they become valid and form part of the working documents for the meeting. The aforesaid minutes of the meetings in contention as mentioned above having been adopted by members in the subsequent meetings, no one has the right to challenge any part of the said minutes for whatever reason.”

The Appeal Committee “unanimously held that David Gbaimeza Uduru, Esq, satisfied the requirements of Article 14 (2)(b) of the Uniform Bye-Laws and is eligible to vote and be voted for. He is also qualified to nominate the petitioner as a candidate for the position of the Secretary as in this case.”

The committee held that “It is therefore our collective resolution/decision that the disqualification of the candidature of Ohaka Egburuwhuo, Esq. was wrongly done. We hereby direct the Election Committee of NBA Port Harcourt Branch to return the name of Ohaka Egburuwhuo, Esq. as qualified to contest the election for the office of Secretary.”

Curiously, the decision was signed by only the Appeal Committee Secretary and Bar Leader Amaka Ezeno. No reason was given for the absence of the signature of the committee chairman, Mr. Stanley Imo SAN.

CITY LAWYER investigation shows that the Appeal Committee’s decision was subject of a heated debate at the recent NBA National Executive Committee meeting held in Awka, the Anambra State capital.

As the branch gears up for its election, all eyes are now on the Appeal Committee with a view to its handling of post-election issues.

(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.