Ibadan Court orders NBA to adopt Akinboro SAN, as the sole candidate for NBA Election in Egbe Amofin’s case

The race for the presidency of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has been thrown into dramatic controversy following an interim order of the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting in Ibadan which restrains the NBA and several key legal institutions from recognising or processing the nomination of any presidential candidate other than the consensus nominee of Egbe Amofin O’odua in the forthcoming 2026 NBA election.

The order, delivered by Hon. Justice Y. S. Adekunle in Suit No. I/205/2026, has triggered intense debate across the legal community because its practical effect could leave thousands of lawyers across Nigeria without a choice of candidates in the association’s presidential election.

The suit was instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of Egbe Amofin O’odua against several defendants, including the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN, the Body of Benchers, the General Council of the Bar, the Attorney-General of the Federation of Nigeria, and Aham Ejelam, SAN, who was sued in his capacity as Chairman of the NBA Electoral Committee and as representative of its members.

Through a Motion Ex Parte, the claimant sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, officers, committees and privies from recognising, accepting or processing the nomination of any candidate other than the claimant’s consensus candidate for the office of President of the Nigerian Bar Association in the forthcoming 2026 election pending the hearing of a Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction.

The application was supported by a forty-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Adetunji Osho, SAN, and filed at the High Court Registry in Ibadan on 16 February 2026. Counsel to the claimant, Tunji Ogunrinde, SAN, moved the application before the court.

After reviewing the affidavit evidence and written submissions, Justice Adekunle held that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for the grant of interim relief. The court observed that an interim injunction serves as a temporary measure to preserve the subject matter of a dispute pending the determination of the substantive issues before the court.

In granting the application, the court held that it was satisfied that the claimant had made out a case warranting judicial intervention and consequently granted the motion as prayed.

The court therefore ordered that the defendants and respondents, including their agents, servants, officers, organs and committees, are restrained from recognising, accepting or processing the nomination of any candidate other than the claimant’s consensus candidate for the office of President of the Nigerian Bar Association in the forthcoming 2026 general election pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction dated 16 February 2026.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to 10 March 2026 for the hearing of the Motion on Notice.

The order has sparked immediate controversy within Nigeria’s legal community because of its potential impact on the democratic structure of the NBA. By restraining the association from recognising any other candidate, the interim injunction effectively narrows the field to the consensus nominee of Egbe Amofin O’odua, widely reported to be Muyiwa Akinboron, SAN.

Legal observers say the practical implication of the ruling is that lawyers who ordinarily participate in the NBA’s electronic voting process may be left without competing candidates to choose from if the order remains in force. Critics argue that the development raises serious questions about the internal electoral autonomy of the NBA and the fundamental principle that members of a professional association should have the freedom to choose their leadership through an open contest.

Supporters of the action, however, maintain that the court merely granted an interim order to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending full hearing and that the substantive issues surrounding the nomination process will be determined when the court hears the Motion on Notice.

With the case scheduled for hearing on 10 March 2026, lawyers now awaits what could become one of the most consequential courtroom battles in the history of the NBA’s internal elections, as the courts are called upon to determine whether the association’s electoral process can proceed with multiple candidates or remain restricted by the interim order.