By: Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN, Ph.D
In the first part of this intervention, I set out, firmly but respectfully, the grave implications of a sitting President of the Nigerian Bar Association abandoning the long-standing tradition of institutional neutrality and descending into open partisanship in the build-up to the 2026 NBA elections. That conduct alone was sufficient to shake the moral foundation of the office he occupies.
However, subsequent developments have now come to light which deepened the concern and, more importantly, render continued silence impossible. What was previously a question of judgement has now become a question of character, transparency, and institutional propriety.
The disturbing revelations emerging from the Maiduguri NEC meeting and the pattern of conduct surrounding financial dealings now present a far more troubling picture, one that compels the legal community to act decisively in defence of its integrity.
What is at stake is not merely the reputation of one individual office holder. What is at stake is the moral standing of the Nigerian Bar Association itself, the very body that claims the authority to speak for the rule of law, ethical governance, and public accountability in Nigeria.
The Borno “Attendance fee” scandal: A test of transparency failed
It has now been widely reported, and remains uncontroverted, that at the NEC meeting held in Maiduguri, the Government of Borno State presented each Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) in attendance with the sum of $2,000 (Two Thousand United States Dollars), described as an “Attendance Fee.” Curiously, this so-called fee was not extended to the other delegates who participated at the same meeting.
This singular act raises immediate and fundamental ethical concerns.
First, there is no provision, tradition, or recognised practice within the NBA that permits a third party, especially a state government, to pay “attendance fees” to selected categories of lawyers attending a statutory meeting of the Bar.
Second, and more gravely, the NBA has a well-established policy grounded in transparency and accountability regarding gifts, donations, or financial benefits received in connection with official NBA activities. That policy requires full disclosure of such benefits and remittance of same into the coffers of the Association, not private retention.
Third, the disbursement of dollar-denominated “attendance fees” to selected members of the NEC at the Maiduguri meeting represents a grave departure from established policy and ethical expectations. Even more concerning is the selective nature of the gifts.
Evidence indicates that Chairmen, Secretaries, statutory NEC members, and young lawyers were excluded, while certain individuals, especially SANs. were specifically targeted as beneficiaries, This fact alone proves that this was not a general administrative arrangement for all participants; it was a curated distribution that raises serious questions about motive, propriety, and fairness.
Furthermore, fundamental legal questions arise. Why was the gift denominated in foreign currency? Is the dollar Nigeria’s national currency? Was such an expenditure captured in the Borno State Appropriation Law? From what source was this money drawn, and under what legal authority was it converted into what has been described as “attendance fees” for selected lawyers?
These are not trivial procedural queries, they go to the heart of financial accountability, legality, and ethical governance.
Yet, to date, no formal disclosure has been made by the leadership of the NBA, and there is no evidence that these funds have been remitted into the Association’s treasury. This silence is deafening.
It becomes even more troubling when juxtaposed with the self-righteous posture of the NBA President, who has publicly castigated both the Bar and the Bench as being riddled with corruption. A leader who proclaims moral authority must himself be above reproach. One cannot preach probity in public and practice opacity in private.
It is therefore both instructive and commendable that one distinguished member of the Bar promptly refunded its own “attendance fees” to the NBA domiciliary account. That singular act demonstrates that ethical clarity is still alive within the profession. It also exposes, by contrast, the failure of leadership at the highest level.
The 2009 Akeredolu Precedent: A clear and binding ethical standard
The Bar is not without guidance on these matters. A very similar situation arose in 2009 during the presidency of my Late Boss Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN (Of Blessed Memory). Following an official visit to the then Governor of Akwa Ibom State His Excellency Mr.Godswill Akpabio (now president of the Senate), a gift of five million naira was presented to the NBA delegation. President Akeredolu approved a modest transport allowance of N50,000 each for four National Officers who are members of his delegation and N100,000 for each of the four branches of the NBA in Akwa Ibom State remitting the balance to the NBA treasury and making full disclosure to the Association.
Even that measured and transparent action sparked significant concern. A petition was lodged, and the matter escalated to the Body of Past Presidents. A high-powered panel, comprising distinguished NBA Presidents, was constituted to investigate. The Panel comprised Chief.TJO Okokpo,SAN (Chairman), Mr. OCJ Okocha,SAN, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN and Prince Lanke Odogiyon, (Life Bencher).
After a meticulous hearing, the panel found no misconduct warranting removal but clearly stated that no portion of such gifts should have been deducted at all, and that the entire sum should have been remitted, with transport claims made separately to the NBA.
From that moment in 2009, a clear and binding policy emerged within the NBA that all gifts received in the course of official assignments must be fully disclosed and wholly remitted to the Association’s purse. No past president of the association has allowed money to be paid to individual lawyers while on official assignment.
This precedent is decisive. It is well known within the Bar. The present President cannot plausibly claim ignorance of it. If the transparent and arguably defensible conduct of 2009 almost led to the removal of a sitting President, then the present situation, marked by selective distribution, foreign currency denomination, and lack of full disclosure, leaves no room for equivocation.
A pattern of non-disclosure: The Rivers State incident revisited
The above is not an isolated occurrence. The Bar will recall that the 2026 Annual General Conference scheduled to be hosted by Rivers State, a sum of ₦300 million was reportedly given by the State Government in support of the NBA. That financial support was not publicly disclosed at the material time.
It only came to light much later, during a post-tenure audit conducted after a change in the administration of the State.
The sequence of events is telling: No disclosure at the point of receipt
and no transparency in the management of the funds, Disclosure only came after exposure. That is not propriety. That is face saving
When two separate incidents within a short tenure exhibit the same pattern of non-disclosure and post-factum explanation, the issue ceases to be incidental and becomes systemic.
Further reports indicate that the NBA President approached a private individual, widely known in national discourse, (Mr. Oweizide Ekpemupolo aka Tompolo), for financial support for last year conference using the platform and influence of the Nigerian Bar Association. The details of the funds received, if any, remain undisclosed to the Bar.
If this account is accurate, and no transparent refutation has been offered, it represents yet another breach of the core values of transparency, institutional accountability, and fiduciary duty expected of the leadership of a professional body of this stature.
The NBA is not a private enterprise. It is a public-facing institution whose legitimacy derives from ethical discipline and moral authority. Financial dealings conducted in secrecy or without proper disclosure erode that legitimacy.
A pattern of conduct inconsistent with the office
When the totality of these issues is considered together, a disturbing pattern emerges: A President who openly declares that he cannot be neutral in an election he is expected to oversee in trust; A President who publicly disparages the integrity of the very profession he leads; A President under whose watch undisclosed financial benefits have been received from external sources; and A President who has failed to provide transparent, proactive disclosure on matters touching on the finances and integrity of the Association.
This is not merely a series of isolated missteps. It is a consistent pattern inconsistent with the ethical expectations of the office.
The only honourable path: Resignation or removal
In light of the foregoing, the only honourable course is clear. The present President has, by his conduct, demonstrated a pattern of behaviour incompatible with the ethical demands of his office. The issue is no longer one of mere misjudgment; it is a systemic erosion of trust.
I therefore reiterate, unequivocally, that the President of the NBA Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN should immediately resign from office in the interest of preserving the integrity of the Bar.
All individuals who received any form of payment or gift at the Maiduguri NEC, regardless of status, rank, or title, should immediately refund such monies to the NBA treasury. Full disclosure of all sums received, disbursed, or retained in connection with official NBA activities must be made public to members without delay.
The Bar cannot demand accountability from the state while excusing opacity within its own leadership.
A call to Institutional Guardians: BoT, AGF, Benchers, and Past Presidents
The gravity of this moment requires the urgent intervention of the Bar’s institutional custodians.
I call on the Board of Trustees of the NBA to immediately step into this matter to prevent a descent into institutional crisis of the kind witnessed in 1992, when internal disputes plunged the Association into prolonged dormancy.
I further call on the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, as Chairman of the General Council of the Bar, to exercise his supervisory responsibility by calling the NBA President to order and prevailing upon him to vacate office in the best interest of the profession.
Additionally, the Body of Benchers and the Body of Past Presidents of the NBA, as the moral and historical Guardians of the Association, must not remain silent. Their voices carry weight, and their intervention at this time is essential to preserve the sanctity of the profession.
Should the President fail to resign, these bodies must initiate and support lawful steps toward his removal in accordance with the Constitution of the Association.
Conclusion: A Moment Of Truth For The Bar
This is a defining moment for the Nigerian Bar Association. We must decide whether the Bar will continue to speak with moral authority on issues of corruption, governance, and the rule of law, or whether it will descend into the very practices it condemns.
Institutions are not destroyed in a day, they are weakened gradually, by silence in the face of impropriety, by excuses in place of accountability, and by loyalty to individuals above loyalty to principles.
The legal profession in Nigeria has, for generations, stood as the conscience of the nation. That legacy must not be squandered.
This call is therefore clear, urgent, and unavoidable: The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Afam Osigwe, SAN, must resign. If he does not, he must be removed. Anything less would amount to a betrayal of the values the Bar claims to uphold.
Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, SAN, Ph.D aka Murray, is a former Publicity Secretary, Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)