NBA Independence At Risk” — ABLIF Flags Power Grab By President And General Secretary, Urges Members To Reject Constitution Amendments

The Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF) has released a scathing report from its Constitution Review Committee, strongly objecting to several proposed amendments to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Constitution.

The group argues that the changes, set to be discussed at the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM), threaten the independence of the General Council of the Bar (GCB), undermine checks and balances, and centralize power in the hands of the NBA President and General Secretary. ABLIF has called on lawyers to reject these amendments to protect the integrity and autonomy of the NBA.

Key Objections to Proposed Amendments

General Council of the Bar (GCB) Composition (Section 7(2))

Proposed Change: The amendment includes the NBA President and General Secretary as automatic members of the GCB, alongside 18 elected members (minimum six per zone), with qualifications requiring private practice, three years of paid fees, and prior leadership roles unless a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN).

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF argues that including the President and General Secretary in the GCB, which regulates NBA affairs, compromises its independence. “The motive of this current leadership is to close all areas of independence of the GCB,” the report states, warning that this move mirrors the President’s control over the National Executive Council (NEC). ABLIF urges the AGM to reject this to ensure effective oversight and checks on NBA leadership.

NEC’s Power to Investigate Branches (Section 8(6)(h))

Proposed Change: Empowers NEC to appoint individuals to investigate NBA branches and report to the council or general meetings.

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF contends this undermines the constitutional roles of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Vice Presidents, who are tasked with overseeing branches. The group sees this as a tactic to legitimize the use of Special Assistants to bypass elected Vice Presidents, rendering their offices “docile.” ABLIF calls for lawyers to oppose this to preserve regional oversight.

Expanded Roles for General Secretary, Diminished Treasurer Functions (Sections 9(5)(e)(ix)-(x), 9(5)(g)(iii), 9(5)(g)(vi))

Proposed Change: Allows the General Secretary or another officer to assume the Treasurer’s duties if the latter is incapacitated or refuses to act, subject to NEC directives. The Treasurer’s budgetary and investment roles are also made subject to NEC approval.

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF labels this a “very ungracious insertion” that promotes “reckless spending” without accountability. The group argues it grants the President excessive control over NBA finances, bypassing the Treasurer’s traditional checks. “This dangerous provision seeks to override independent scrutiny of the President’s expenses,” the report warns, urging lawyers to reject it to prevent financial mismanagement.

NEC’s Disciplinary Powers (Section 20(4))

Proposed Change: Grants NEC authority to impose disciplinary measures for ethical or professional misconduct, with state-level Ethics and Disciplinary Committees investigating complaints referred by the President or NEC.

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF warns that this duplicates the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee’s (LPDC) authority and risks misuse by NEC, influenced by the President, to target perceived enemies. “These provisions are very dangerous,” the report states, urging lawyers to oppose them to protect members from arbitrary discipline.

Account Signatories (Section 23(2))

Proposed Change: Designates the President, General Secretary, and/or Treasurer as authorized account signatories.

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF argues this removes the Treasurer’s mandatory role as a second signatory, a longstanding check against financial misappropriation. “This is a clear demonstration to cripple checks and balances,” the report states, calling for its rejection at the AGM.

Data Protection Officer (Article 10, Part II)

Proposed Change: Mandates the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) to engage a Data Protection Officer to ensure compliance with data protection laws, restrict unauthorized data release, and train NEC and ECNBA members.

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF fears this restricts candidates’ access to members’ contact details for campaigns, potentially favoring leadership-preferred candidates. It also notes that it prevents challenges to election vote data, as the constitution cannot be rewritten by courts. ABLIF urges opposition to protect fair electoral processes.

Campaign Finance and Conduct (Part III)

Proposed Change: Prohibits branches, sections, and fora from soliciting funds from candidates, bans voting centers outside regular branch venues, and disqualifies candidates for hosting events, publishing defamatory material, or providing false qualifications.

ABLIF’s Objection: ABLIF questions who determines “defamatory” statements, arguing that without court adjudication, this could be used to silence dissent. The group calls for condemnation of these provisions to ensure fair elections.

Branch Creation Process (Section 9, Part II)

Proposed Change: Requires applications for new branches to include 50 signatures from existing branch members, evidence of three years’ dues, and a letter from the state’s Chief Judge, with the General Secretary submitting applications to NEC.

ABLIF argues this strengthens the General Secretary’s role at the expense of Vice Presidents, who are constitutionally tasked with supervising branch formation. The group notes that past branch creations often bypassed due process, and while the proposal aims to address this, it risks undermining Vice Presidents’ authority. ABLIF calls for resistance to maintain regional oversight.

ABLIF’s report urges NBA members attending the AGM to reject these amendments, describing them as “obnoxious and anti-Bar laws” that centralize power, undermine accountability, and threaten the association’s democratic principles. The group accuses the NBA leadership of pursuing ulterior motives, particularly in consolidating financial and disciplinary control under the President and General Secretary. “Lawyers should vehemently oppose these provisions to protect the overall interest of the Bar,” the report concludes.