LEGAL, STATUTORY AND PRACTICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR NBA’S ROLE IN COLLECTION OF BAR PRACTISING FEE

OPINION

LEGAL, STATUTORY, AND PRACTICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION’S ROLE IN COLLECTION OF THE BAR PRACTISING FEE (BPF) (a reaction to Amb Hameed Ajibola Jimoh)

By Sylvester Udemezue

Memory Verse: It is one thing to quote the law; it is another to understand the policy and jurisprudence underpinning its application.

1. Clarifying the Misapprehensions: I have read with utmost respect and interest a recent piece by my respected learned friend, Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, titled “Only The Chief Registrar Of The S’Court Is Legally Empowered To Collect Annual Practising Fees And Issue Practice Licences To Lawyers – Not The NBA”. While I commend his devotion to interrogating legal practices with a critical eye, I respectfully submit that the conclusion drawn in that article is based on a fundamental misreading of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), and a misunderstanding of the longstanding, lawful, and efficient administrative cooperation between the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court in the collection of Bar Practising Fees (BPF).

2. The position taken by Amb Jimoh is not new. A similar argument was raised in 2019 by Mr. Steve Sun, and I had addressed the matter exhaustively in my article titled “A Dispassionate Evaluation of Steve Sun’s Censorious Protestations Against the Début of NBA’s Online Portal for Bar Practising Fees,” published on Courtroom Mail. That rebuttal, founded on sound statutory interpretation and practical illustrations, remains instructive and relevant in today’s renewed conversation.

3. Legal Foundation Of Nba ‘S Action: [See: Sections 8 and 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, LFN, 2004]. The cornerstone of legal regulation for the Bar Practicing Fee lies in Section 8(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act which provides: “A person shall not be entitled to practice as a barrister and solicitor in Nigeria unless there is in respect of him in force a practicing certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, and unless he has paid a practicing fee as may be prescribed by rules made under this section.” While this provision clearly vests the power to issue practising certificates in the Chief Registrar, it does not expressly or impliedly preclude administrative collaboration with the NBA in the collection of practising fees. In fact, Section 8(4) of the same Act enables the Attorney-General of the Federation, with the concurrence of the General Council of the Bar, to make rules regulating the payment of fees. This statutory opening has been operationalised to accommodate the NBA’s logistical and technological support in the process. Furthermore, Section 11(1)(c) of the LPA authorizes the General Council of the Bar, a body chaired by the Attorney-General and comprising NBA leadership, to “make rules for regulating the privileges and duties of legal practitioners in Nigeria.” Thus, role of the NBA in BPF collection is not a legal intrusion but a statutory partnership fully within the spirit and letter of the law.

4. The NBA’s Constitutional and Institutional Mandate: The Constitution of the NBA affirms in Section 3(1) that the NBA is “the umbrella body of all lawyers admitted to practice law in Nigeria.” As the central professional organization of the legal profession in Nigeria, the NBA carries both the burden and duty to promote regulatory clarity, operational efficiency, and professional accountability. Its functions include regulating member welfare, ethics, and compliance, including support in collecting BPFs, ensuring timely remittances, and enabling access to practicing certificates. To challenge this supportive role is to weaken a system that has served the Bar effectively for over two decades.

5. Longstanding Practice, Estoppel, and De Facto Authority: The administrative cooperation between the NBA and the Chief Registrar is not a recent innovation. Since the early 2000s, both bodies have operated a collaborative model in which the NBA serves as the front-end collector, now via a centralized digital platform, while remittance, record validation, and issuance of certificates remain the responsibility of the Chief Registrar. The Supreme Court of Nigeria confirmed in A.G. ABIA STATE V. A.G. FEDERATION (2006) LPELR-603(SC), “Where a practice, even if not expressly provided by statute, is followed consistently by all concerned, and is not contrary to law, it may acquire binding force by estoppel or administrative convention.” It follows that this settled convention, acquiesced to by the Bench, Bar, and the Attorney-General, has become part of Nigeria’s legal administrative architecture. Likewise, the Court of Appeal in UNILORIN V. ADESINA (2010) LPELR-8986(CA) held that “It is not the form of power but its lawful exercise that the courts are concerned with.” Hence, the NBA’s role, exercised in good faith under mutual administrative arrangements, is legitimate under principles of de facto authority.

6. MISAPPLICATION OF OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS: Our learned friend cites the landmark case of OLANIYAN V. UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 to argue that the NBA’s role is ultra vires. With respect, his reliance on that case is misplaced. Olaniyan was a case of unilateral administrative overreach: the unlawful termination of tenured academic appointments in contravention of governing statutes. In contrast, the NBA’s participation in BPF collection is based on express consent, mutual recognition, and sustained collaborative practice with the Chief Registrar and the AGF. The doctrine of ultra vires applies only where there is no statutory basis, express or implied, for the administrative action. Here, we have both legal authorization (via LPA and Bar Council rules) and decades of administrative cooperation.

7. PRACTICAL REALITIES – WHY THE NBA PORTAL IS NECESSARY: Let us picture the alternative: in the absence of the NBA’s digital portal, every legal practitioner in Nigeria would need to either travel to Abuja to make BPF payments manually at the Supreme Court and collect a receipt from the Supreme Court or pay at a bank and wait for a receipt to be issued by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. That would lead to delays, inefficiencies, missing records, and increased operational costs. The NBA’s portal is not a power-grab. It is a technological solution adopted to (a). Facilitate ease of payment nationwide; (b). Maintain verifiable and centralized records; (c). Enable instant issuance of receipts; and (d). Ensure reconciliation with the Supreme Court’s registry. The portal remains linked to the Chief Registrar’s database, with final authority over collection of practicing certificates still residing with the Court. This is the ideal model of administrative convenience and innovation. Thus, the NBA portal is merely a medium through which the BPF is paid to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. Thus NBA doesn’t collect BPF but facilitates collection of the BPF by the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

8. A Word of Caution and Counsel: This is not the first time objections have been raised against the NBA’s digitalization of BPF payment. It is important, however, that we do not let misinterpretations of law obscure long-accepted institutional arrangements that have enhanced transparency, accountability, and professionalism in our practice. To roll back this cooperation would not only plunge the Bar into administrative regression, it would unravel the significant gains made in modernizing legal practice in Nigeria. As I concluded in my article on this subject in 2019, “A deviation from this pragmatic cooperation between the NBA and the Supreme Court would not only breed confusion but also unravel the administrative gains we have achieved in regulating our profession in a digital age.”

9. The NBA Is The Principal Beneficiary of the BPF: In my 2019 article, referenced above, I had argued that the claim that the NBA lacks the authority to operate an online portal for Bar Practising Fees (BPF), and that BPF is payable solely to the Supreme Court, is mistaken. While Section 8(2) of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) provides that BPF is paid to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Section 8(3)(c) clearly mandates that 90% of all BPF collected must be remitted to the NBA annually. This makes the NBA not a mere stakeholder, but the principal beneficiary of BPF, with an inherent interest and role in its administration. The correct position, therefore, is that BPF is paid to the NBA through the Registrar. The NBA’s use of a digital portal is simply an administrative mechanism to facilitate this process, not a usurpation of statutory powers. The law, long-standing practice, and administrative logic all affirm the NBA’s locus in BPF matters.

10. The Law Meets Practical Reality: To quote Lord Denning in SEAFORD COURT ESTATES LTD V. ASHER (1949) 2 KB 481, “Whenever a statute comes before a court, it is not to be construed as a mere grammatical exercise but must be interpreted in the light of practical reality.” The practical reality is that the NBA portal is a lawful, collaborative, and functional innovation, sustained by statute, guided by administrative law principles, and executed in full cooperation with the relevant authorities. To challenge it on hollow grounds is not to promote legal purity, but to sabotage administrative progress. Let the Bar be guided accordingly so as to not be misled.

Long live NBA!

Sylvester Udemezue
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM). TheRealityMinister@Gmail.Com

________________________________________________________________________________

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply