The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), has hit back at Jibrin Samuel Okutepa (SAN), over allegations of political victimisation, describing claims that a disciplinary petition against him is a “witch-hunt” as misleading and false.
Osigwe earlier filed a petition against Okutepa before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) and the Body of Benchers over his role as lead counsel in two lawsuits challenging the composition of the NBA’s Electoral Committee.
However, in a response, Okutepa dismissed the petition as a calculated attempt to intimidate him and silence dissent within the Bar, declaring that he remains unfazed by what he described as manipulative tactics.
Okutepa had insisted that accepting legal briefs from clients cannot, under any circumstance, amount to professional misconduct.
At the centre of the controversy are two suits currently pending before the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting in Ibadan.
The suits challenge the controversial and unconstitutional composition of the NBA’s Electoral Committee (ECNBA), which was constituted by the NBA leadership ahead of the association’s elections.
Okutepa is serving as lead counsel to the claimants in the cases.
Meanwhile, the NBA President’s petition alleges that Okutepa committed professional misconduct by agreeing to lead the legal challenge against the NBA and other parties involved in the constitution of the ECNBA.
But Okutepa has rejected the allegation outright, describing it as a gross misuse of disciplinary procedures.
In a detailed reaction, Okutepa said he had not yet been formally served with the petition but had become aware of it.
Okutepa said that the petition was filed because the NBA President believes it was professional misconduct for him to accept the role of lead counsel in the suits challenging the ECNBA’s composition.
The senior advocate went further to accuse Osigwe of using institutional disciplinary mechanisms as a weapon against lawyers who disagree with the NBA leadership.
But in a forceful response, Osigwe insisted that the petition is grounded in professional ethics and adherence to the rules of legal practice, not personal or political animosity.
Osigwe described Okutepa’s claim as “more amusement than anger,” emphasising that the petition is not about the right to represent a client or challenge a legal decision but about the manner in which that right was exercised, particularly in the context of ex parte proceedings that affected the electoral process of the Association.
“The petition to the LPDC is not about whether Chief Okutepa had the right to accept a brief or challenge the constitution of the ECNBA. That right is unquestionable and firmly rooted in our adversarial system.
“The issue concerns the manner in which that right was exercised and whether the ethical obligations owed to the court, particularly in ex parte proceedings, were fully observed,” Osigwe said.
According to Osigwe, the NBA’s concerns relate to the omission of material facts during the ex parte application, which ultimately led to interim orders restraining the ECNBA from functioning.
These orders, he argued, had the potential to disrupt the Association’s electoral process.
“The ex parte application was prosecuted without disclosure of the material fact that both lead counsel and the first claimant were present at the NEC meeting where the committee was constituted,” he stated.
He added, “Video recordings of the proceedings, as well as communiqués circulated immediately after the meeting, indicate that Chief Okutepa (SAN), not only attended the meeting but actively participated, including presenting the report of the Security Ad-hoc Committee he chaired.”
Osigwe challenged Okutepa’s framing of the petition as personal or retaliatory, insisting that the matter is strictly about professional responsibility, particularly the duty of candour that lawyers owe to the court.
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, counsel is required to disclose all material facts in ex parte applications, as the court relies entirely on the integrity and good faith of the presenting lawyer.
“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?” Osigwe asked.
The NBA president also denied allegations that he had lobbied for Okutepa’s exclusion from the Body of Benchers.
He described such claims as “misconceived,” saying that the Association merely exercised its discretion not to recommend Okutepa for renewal while the petition was pending before the LPDC.
“It would have been inconsistent for the Association to recommend for re-appointment to a body of the highest distinction in the profession a person whose conduct it had simultaneously referred for disciplinary scrutiny,” he said.
Osigwe said that according to ECNBA’s constitution, the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting in Benin had formally moved and seconded the motion establishing the committee, which was subsequently adopted and widely circulated in a communiqué.
According to him, no objections were raised at the time by any attendees, including Okutepa.
The NBA president argued that reliance solely on meeting minutes that allegedly did not capture the full proceedings, in the face of both video evidence and a widely circulated communiqué, raises serious questions of professional accountability.
“This matter is not about personalities. It is about preserving professional ethics, particularly where ex parte orders are invoked in circumstances capable of affecting the electoral process of the Association,” Osigwe said.
“The petition seeks clarification on the extent to which a lawyer may rely on client instructions where material facts known to counsel are not disclosed, and the scope of the duty of candour under Rule 24(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Osigwe stressed that the LPDC exists precisely to examine allegations of professional misconduct and that filing a petition is a lawful mechanism for ensuring accountability within the legal profession, not an avenue for intimidation or political vendetta.
He underscored that any determination of wrongdoing will be evidence-based and follow the quasi-judicial procedures of the disciplinary body, rather than public opinion or media narratives.
“Submitting a petition to the LPDC is the invocation of a lawful accountability mechanism. Whether the petition succeeds or fails is a matter for determination on evidence, not public sentiment,” he said.
The NBA president concluded that the petition is an institutional step taken in good faith.
He reiterated that it is not a personal attack, not a political contest, but a professional inquiry into whether the ex parte orders obtained complied with the ethical standards expected of Nigerian lawyers.
“This is not a witch-hunt, as has been claimed. It is a matter of professional accountability. The determination of these issues should properly lie with the disciplinary process, not in the arena of public debate,” Osigwe said.