‘SHUN SILENCING LAWYERS OVER MCPD PROTEST,’ EX VP, OTHERS TELL NBA PRESIDENT

NEWS RELEASE

PRESS STATEMENT BY THE ADVOCACY FOR BAR LICENCE FREEDOM (ABLIF)

Delivered At a Press Briefing on the 23rd Day of July, 2025

Title: “Access, Not Exclusion: Lawyers Demand Justice within the Bar”

1. INTRODUCTION

Ladies and gentlemen of the press, esteemed colleagues, and fellow Nigerians,

We welcome you and thank you for your presence today at this world Press briefing.

We address you as members of the Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF)—a broad-based, non-partisan coalition of Nigerian lawyers united by one core principle: that no lawyer should be barred from lawful practice for failing to meet a condition that is structurally inaccessible, economically exclusionary, and procedurally questionable.

We stand not in defiance of education, but in defense of fairness, inclusion, and justice—values which the legal profession must embody internally before it can advocate them to society.

2. CONTEXT OF THE CRISIS

On July 9, 2025, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) issued a formal statement reaffirming his administration’s unilateral enforcement of the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development (MCPD) Rules, 2025. The directive, framed as the implementation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 2023, threatens to deny access to the Annual Practicing Certificate to any lawyer who fails to accumulate five (5) CPD credit hours annually, This Same Rule has an exception In Rule 11 Sub 6c Of RPC yet the President turned deaf ears to it.

Cloaked in legalese, this action is administrative disenfranchisement—without constitutional backing, now being smuggled in retroactively through amendment. It defies natural justice, flouts fair hearing, and imperils over 30,000 lawyers nationwide.

3. OUR CONCERNS

(a) COMMERCIALIZING OF CPD: A STRUCTURAL SLIPPERY SLOPE
In addition to procedural and constitutional concerns, we must express our unease at the unbridled monetization of the CPD process. While professional development is a worthy goal, it must not become a gateway for financial exclusion or an indirect economic burden imposed on already strained practitioners.

We are particularly concerned that the current structure—relying heavily on paid trainings by accredited third-party providers—creates an environment where access is determined by purchasing power, not merit or commitment. Although some free training exists, they are few, oversubscribed, and often inaccessible due to technical limitations. As it stands, many lawyers are left with no choice but to opt for costly CPD sessions if they must retain their practicing rights.

Thus there is an increasing apprehension within the legal community that, without adequate safeguards, the CPD framework may evolve into a commercialized mechanism—where revenue generation takes precedence over inclusive capacity-building. This concern is heightened by the lack of clear, transparent criteria for accreditation, oversight of service providers, and regulation of pricing.

Our concern is that CPD is prepped as a privileged service economy within the legal profession. We insist that any regime aimed at professional development must be inclusive, affordable, accountable, and subject to democratic scrutiny.

We also feel that the Present leadership feels less of litigation lawyer hence they now bring in non-lawyers to teach litigation lawyers how to speak in court for a fee and for CPD Points, You can imagine such an insult.
Who awards the litigation lawyer points for pro bono cases that we do?
Which Points are awarded for a case won or lost?

Don’t we know the amount of time, research, and intellectual assertion that go into preparing statement of claim, briefs of argument ETC?

In fact the litigation lawyers are being highly disrespected by the legal profession in recent times, most especially under a leader that does litigation more. Did you know that majority of the webinars and ICLE programs are conducted when litigation lawyers are in courts discharging their responsibilities to their various clients (11am to 3pm), what time will legal assistant of a head of courts has to join zoom to attain CPD points for practice license?.
(b) Lack of Stakeholder Consultation

The MCPD Rules were drafted, approved, and circulated without consultation with branches, NEC, or the wider Bar. This offends the spirit of participatory governance enshrined in the NBA Constitution.

Many lawyers—especially those in rural areas,—lack access to CPD trainings, which are often hosted in urban Centers or overcrowded virtual platforms. To withhold their practicing rights is to punish them for systemic shortcomings they did not create.

(d) Use of Administrative Power to Enforce Discretionary Policy

The NBA President claims CPD is “mandatory” under the RPC. But nowhere in the RPC does it authorize the NBA or its leadership to bar lawyers from legal practice on that basis. This is regulatory overreach, not rule enforcement.

(e) Weaponization of Disciplinary Language

We are disturbed by language in official communications that brands dissenting views as “false narratives” and subtly threatens Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) referral. This does not reflect leadership—it reflects an attempt to silence legitimate concern.

4. OUR POSITION

We wish to make it clear:

● We are not against Continuing Legal Education. We support lifelong learning and professional excellence.
● We are against the coercive commercialization of the policy.
● We are against its compulsory enforcement as a precondition for legal practice, especially when:
o Access is limited.
o Stakeholders were not consulted.
o It risks mass exclusion and systemic injustice.
This is not reform. This is imposition.

5. WHAT WE DEMAND

We call on the NBA leadership to:

1. Suspend the enforcement of the MCPD Rules, 2025 as a precondition for licensure.
2. Stop every autocratic and undemocratic rule as well as attempts to silence lawyers from raising legitimate concerns as they might affect those lawyers and members of the association;
3. Halt any attempt to use constitutional amendment in the ongoing NBA Constitution to confer disciplinary powers on the NBA National Executive Council (NEC), which is the highest decision making Committee of the NBA, to discipline Nigerian lawyers for any alleged ethical and professional misconduct, the powers which is likely subject to being abused by the NBA President unilaterally to silence opposing or dissenting views and or criticism by members and not excluding ABLIF comrades, if allowed to scale through such constitutional amendment. We have observed paragraph 46 of the recently released ‘Executive Report’ by the Constitutional Amendment Committee of the NBA, which has shown an intent by the NBA President to ensure that this power of discipline of lawyers is conferred on the NBA NEC without any legal or statutory basis under the Legal Practitioners’ Act, 2004 or any law having force in Nigeria. (And many draconian inclusions in the proposed NBA constitutional amendment: such as Reducing the powers of Vice Presidents for branch creation and reducing the powers of treasurer for transparency and accountability of the association fund) and many more.
4. Convene a Bar-wide consultative process, involving NEC, branches, and all stakeholders, to review the policy.
5. Adopt a transitional, inclusive CPD framework that balances professional development with access, fairness, and practical realities.
6. Refrain from using administrative powers or disciplinary bodies to stifle dissent within the Bar.

6. NEXT STEPS

ABLIF has:

● Activated constitutional dispute mechanisms within the NBA to challenge the legality of the MCPD directive.
● Mobilized over 1,000 signatories nationwide, including senior and junior colleagues alike, to endorse this cause/advocacy.
● Initiated consultations with civil societies, media, and relevant authorities, including the National Assembly, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (a life Bencher of the Body of Benchers), and Office of the Attorney-General (who is also the Chairman of the General Council of the Bar), among other notable personalities and offices within and outside the legal profession, to defend the right of all lawyers to access Justice through the practice of law.
We however wish to emphasize that should the NBA leadership fail to act, peaceful protest, sustained advocacy, and public interest litigation remain on the table.

7. CONCLUSION

As lawyers, we are trained to uphold justice — not just in the courtroom, but in our institutions.

As members of the NBA, we owe ourselves a Bar that governs by dialogue, not decree.
As Nigerians, we believe no profession should deny access to its members based on opaque or elitist regulations.

In the spirit of Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, Alao Aka-Bashorun, Olumide Akpata, and all who spoke truth to power — we say again:

We do not seek to destroy the NBA. We seek to bring it back to itself.

“With resolve, we defend the profession. With courage, we reclaim its soul.”

E-SIGNED:
Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, Esq.
National Convener,
For: Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF).

E- SIGNED:
Chukwuemeka Clement, Esq.
National Co-Convener,
For: Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF)

E- SIGNED:
Christabel Zoe Ayuk, Esq.,
National Secretary,
For: Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF)

____________________________________________________________________

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply