Comrade Etaba Agbor

OUR LAWS AND DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES The Nigerian Bar Association @NigBarAssoc has closely monitored recent political and legal developments as the nation gradually approaches the 2027 General Elections. These developments, particularly those arising from the interpretation and potential application of provisions of the Electoral Act 2026, raise serious constitutional, democratic, and rule-of-law concerns that require immediate intervention. We particularly deprecate the disturbing involvement by lawyers and courts in the internal affairs of political parties despite the clear provisions of the Electoral Act, 2026, which stipulates in Section 83 of the Act that “No court in Nigeria shall entertain jurisdiction over any suit or matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party.” Not only are courts denied jurisdiction to entertain any matter pertaining to the internal affairs of a political party, but they are also precluded from granting any interim or interlocutory injunction even where any action has been brought in violation of the Act. The section further provides that “Where such an action is brought in negation of this provision, no interim or interlocutory injunction shall be entertained by the Court, but the Court shall suspend its ruling and deliver it at the stage of final judgment and shall give accelerated hearing to the matter”. What we now see are situations where actions are not only instituted in Courts by lawyers in clear violation of the Act, but Courts purportedly grant interim and/or interlocutory injunctions in clear contempt of statutory provisions of the law. This does not augur well for our democracy. Democracy will not thrive in a situation where lawyers and courts take actions and decisions that not only negate our laws but also do violence to them. This emerging trend of subverting the clear letters of the Electoral Act and dragging courts into the internal affairs of political parties through disingenuous litigation, forum shopping, and malafide applications designed to secure undemocratic political advantage, bodes no good for our democracy. Such practices, if not immediately curbed, would directly contradict the clear intendment of the Electoral Act and risk transforming the judicial processes into avenues for political score-settling or electoral manipulation. We must reiterate that these provisions were clearly designed to curb abuse of court processes and discourage forum shopping in political disputes. This is therefore why the NBA is concerned that the abuse, misapplication, or selective deployment of these provisions may create opportunities for manipulation capable of undermining democratic competition and shrinking the political space. Members of the Bar are reminded that they are Ministers in the Temple of Justice and not political agents seeking judicial endorsement of partisan objectives. The filing of actions intended to draw courts into internal political party disputes, particularly where jurisdiction is expressly excluded, constitutes an abuse of court process and a violation of professional responsibility. The NBA will take firm steps to deter such conduct. Lawyers who deliberately file actions aimed at procuring judicial interference in intra-party affairs, or who seek ex parte or interlocutory orders in clear violation of statutory provisions, risk facing disciplinary proceedings. We will not hesitate to present petitions before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) against any Legal Practitioner found to be engaging in such conduct. This will be pursued decisively to serve as a deterrent and to preserve the sanctity of the judicial process. The Nigerian judiciary must stay vigilant and resist being drawn into political theatrics. Courts should firmly decline invitations, no matter how artfully crafted, to intervene in matters the law explicitly bars them from. A thread 1/2

IT IS AN ISSUE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT WITCH-HUNT Dear Chief Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN @sanjsokutepa, I read your write up with more amusement than anger. In other to portray yourself as a victim of political oppression and witch-hunt, you accused me of abuse of office, forgery and indeed, professional misconduct. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I would ordinarily have ignored your post but for the fear that your misleading public narrative may be believed and thereby portray me as one guilty of your allegations. You will therefore understand why I have to respond to you in the same medium you have accused me. The petition to the LPDC is not about whether Chief Okutepa had the right to accept a brief or challenge the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA). That right is unquestionable and firmly rooted in our adversarial system. The issue, rather, concerns the manner in which that right was exercised and whether, in the course of doing so, the ethical obligations owed to the court, particularly in ex parte proceedings, were fully observed. Contrary to the narrative being advanced, the petition is neither personal nor retaliatory. It arises from what appears to be a serious professional concern deserving examination by the appropriate disciplinary body. The focus is not on representation, but on the circumstances surrounding Suit No. I/221/2026 and the procurement of far-reaching ex parte orders affecting the electoral process of the Association. It is not disputed that the ECNBA was constituted at the National Executive Committee meeting held in Benin. The records of the meeting indicate that, following deliberations, a motion for the constitution of the ECNBA was formally moved by Chief Richard Oma Ahonaruogho, SAN, seconded by Mr. Clever N. Owhor, and adopted by NEC. Chief Okutepa, SAN, was present throughout the proceedings and actively participated in the meeting, including presenting the report and communiqué of the Security Ad-hoc Committee which he chaired shortly after the ratification of the ECNBA. This procedure of presentation, motion, seconding, and adoption, reflects the established practice of NEC. A communiqué issued immediately after the meeting also reflected, among other resolutions, the constitution of the ECNBA. That communiqué circulated widely within the Bar and remained unchallenged. No objection was raised by those present, including Chief Okutepa, SAN, regarding the accuracy of the communiqué or the fact of the ECNBA’s constitution. In addition, video recordings of the NEC proceedings capture the deliberations leading to the constitution of the ECNBA, including the motion, the seconding, and the adoption. The recordings also show that Chief Okutepa, SAN, was present in the hall during these proceedings. These materials underscore the importance of examining whether all material facts known to counsel were disclosed when the ex parte orders were sought. The concern is further heightened by the reliance on minutes which allegedly did not reflect the full proceedings of the meeting, particularly the motion and adoption of the ECNBA. The ex parte application was prosecuted without disclosure of the material fact that both lead counsel and the first claimant were present at the meeting where the committee was constituted. Interim orders were thereafter granted restraining the ECNBA from functioning, thereby affecting the electoral process of the Association. This raises an important professional question: where counsel personally witnessed the constitution of a body through a motion duly moved and seconded, and where a communiqué issued immediately thereafter reflected that decision without objection, does the failure to disclose those facts in an ex parte application not call for scrutiny? A thread. 1/2

NBA SECURES RELEASE OF LAWYER REMANDED IN PORT HARCOURT Following the directive of the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN @afamosigwe, to the NBA Human Rights Institute to immediately monitor and follow up on the remand of Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin, the Institute took prompt steps to engage relevant judicial and administrative authorities as well as the NBA Porthacourt branch toward securing her release. Mrs. Lovinah Ugbana Benjamin, who was earlier remanded following proceedings before the High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt, was subsequently released on 26 March 2026 after the intervention of the NBA. In furtherance of this mandate, the Institute activated its response mechanism and worked closely with the Chairman of the NBA Port Harcourt Branch, Mrs. Cordelia Eke, whose collaboration and swift engagement with relevant stakeholders contributed significantly to the resolution of the matter. The intervention underscores the commitment of the Nigerian Bar Association to safeguarding the dignity of the legal profession and protecting the fundamental rights of legal practitioners. The NBA reiterates that while courts possess powers to punish for contempt, such powers must be exercised sparingly, judiciously, and strictly within the confines of due process. The NBA Human Rights Institute will continue to monitor developments arising from the incident and take further steps where necessary. The Association also commends the leadership of the NBA Port Harcourt Branch and our colleagues in Porthacourt for the prompt cooperation and support. The Nigerian Bar Association remains resolute in defending the independence of the Bar and ensuring that no legal practitioner is subjected to intimidation or unlawful detention in the course of performing professional duties. Sabastine Anyia Chairman, NBA Human Rights Institute 1st Vice President, Nigerian Bar Association