Nigerian Bar Association’s CPD Requirement For Bar Practicing License Is Lawful, Necessary, And Consistent With Global Best Practices (A Respectful Response to Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh)

By Sylvester Udemezue

(A). BACKGROUND:

Earlier in 2025, the Nigerian Bar Association led by Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, introduced the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development (MCPD) Rules 2025, requiring all practising lawyers in Nigeria to complete at least five CPD credit hours annually. The goal is to uphold professionalism and excellence, ensuring lawyers continuously update legal knowledge, skills, and ethical practice. Lawyers can earn these credits through: (1) NBA‑ICLE-approved courses, seminars, workshops, webinars, and (2) publishing in accredited legal journals, thus catering to diverse learning methods. To this end, NBA is rolling out digitalised annual practice licences (the first of their kind) accessible to members via the NBA Portal. A public annual register of practising lawyers will also be published online. The overall effect is that from 2026 onward, only lawyers who (1) earn the 5 CPD points, and (2) pay practising fees on time will have their licences issued digitally and their names included in the official practising list. According to NBA, this initiative fosters accountability, transparency, and quality within the legal profession, and encourages a culture of lifelong learning, modernising practices and enhancing public trust. [See: ‘NBA President Osigwe Introduces Mandatory CPD Rules, Digitalized Practice Licenses for 2025’ (DNL Legal & Style, 15 May 2025)]

However, in an open letter dated 23 June 2025, addressed to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, a lawyer, Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, has alleged that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) is unlawfully usurping statutory powers by conditioning the issuance of legal practice licences and NBA stamps on lawyers’ compliance with Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements. Mr. Jimoh argues that under the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), particularly sections 2, 7, 8, and 24, only the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court is empowered to issue annual practising licences and collect associated fees. He notes that while 90% of these fees are remitted to the NBA, this financial arrangement does not transfer licensing powers to the Association. He criticises the NBA’s recent directive requiring lawyers to complete a fixed number of CPD hours before receiving their practising certificates and NBA stamps. According to Jimoh, this policy creates an unlawful barrier to legal practice and amounts to an administrative overreach, since NBA stamps are essential for filing court documents, representing clients, and appearing in court. Jimoh contends that the NBA’s CPD policy violates constitutional provisions, especially Section 17 (promotion of justice and equal opportunity), and Section 36 (right to fair hearing and legal representation). By restricting practice rights over CPD compliance, Jimoh argues that the NBA undermines litigants’ access to legal representation, thereby obstructing justice delivery. Jimoh calls on the Supreme Court, the NBA President, and the Institute of Continuing Legal Education (NBA-ICLE) to review and amend the CPD regime to align with statutory and constitutional boundaries. He warns against undemocratic practices that could unjustly deprive lawyers of their right to practise. [See: ‘”Who Should Issue Lawyers’ Licenses”?—Jimoh Writes Supreme Court, Accuses NBA of Usurping Statutory Role Over CPD, Threat to Withhold Stamps’,’ (TheNigeriaLawyer, 24 June 2025)]

The present commentary is a respectful rejoinder to Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh’s said protest letter. In this piece, I demonstrate, supported by relevant legal authorities, that the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) decision to link the issuance of practising licences to compliance with Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements is lawful, reasonable, and aligned with international best practices and global standards, and that by contrast, Amb. Jimoh’s opposing view (suggesting that such a measure is illegal, unconstitutional, and ultra vires) is, with respect, fundamentally flawed both in principle and in law, being legally unsound and normatively counterproductive. Amb. Jimoh’s argument that this policy is unconstitutional, ultra vires, and amounts to usurpation of powers legally vested in the Supreme Court Registrar must be examined in the light of statutory interpretation, regulatory architecture, comparative jurisprudence, and the imperatives of professional integrity. My submission is as follows:

(B). THE DISCUSSION

1. LAW PRACTICE IS A LICENSED PRIVILEGE, NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT: Contrary to the impression conveyed by the learned Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, the right to practise law in Nigeria is not an unqualified entitlement. It is a licensed and regulated privilege, exercised only under clearly defined conditions. Section 2(1), Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), Cap L11, LFN 2004 provides that “A person shall be entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll and he satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.” The key phrase here is “if, and only if, his name is on the roll and he satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed.” This affirms that merely being admitted to the Bar is only a gateway, not a perpetual licence to practise law in Nigeria.
2. PAYMENT OF PRACTISING FEES AND CPD ARE AMONG “SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED”: Learned Hameed Ajibola Jimoh rightly invokes the role of annual practising fees, but omits a more recent and equally binding condition: CPD compliance. Section 8(2), LPA provides that “A person shall not be entitled to practise… unless he has paid the prescribed annual practising fee.” This was supplemented and modernised by Rule 12(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC), 2023 which provides as follows: “A legal practitioner shall not be entitled… to obtain a practising certificate unless he has paid the annual practising fee and fulfilled the requirements of continuing professional development as prescribed by the NBA.” The implication is that CPD is no longer aspirational but mandatory, and on equal footing with payment of the Annual Bar Practising Fee.
3. NBA IS NOT JUST A PRIVATE CLUB, BUT A STATUTORILY-RECOGNISED STAKEHOLDER AND REGULATOR: A persistent misconception is that the NBA is merely a voluntary association, akin to any union or civil society group. This view is historically and legally inaccurate. In GANI FAWEHINMI v. LPDC (1985), Hon. Justice Niki Tobi, JSC, emphasised that “The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee and the Nigerian Bar Association form essential limbs in the regulation and discipline of legal practitioners.” Moreover, the RPC, which is binding on all lawyers, is issued pursuant to Section 12(4) of the LPA with the NBA’s institutional input. Indeed, the NBA’s NEC-approved CPD Rules (2025) derive their legitimacy from this legal infrastructure, not from mere customs of an association.
4. THE ROLE OF THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA IS ADMINISTRATIVE, NOT EXCLUSIVE: Learned Hameed Ajibola Jimoh’s invocation of Section 9 of the LPA, particularly the Registrar’s duty to issue practising certificates, overlooks an important nuance. Section 9(1), LPA provides that “The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court shall maintain the Roll and issue practising certificates.” However, Section 9(3), LPA, crucially provides that “No legal practitioner shall be entitled to a practising certificate unless he complies with the requirements as may be prescribed under this Act or any rules made thereunder.” Thus, Section 9(3) harmonises the Registrar’s administrative role with the NBA’s regulatory function, especially via the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Registrar cannot issue a certificate contrary to the express terms of the RPC, nor can the NBA issue stamps without regard to eligibility conditions.
5. CASE LAW AFFIRMS CONDITIONAL NATURE OF LAW PRACTICE IN NIGERIA: Although Nigeria’s appellate courts are yet to directly pronounce on CPD-linked licensing, the logic is consistent with existing precedents. In NBA v. KEHINDE Ogunsemi (2012) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1301) 543, it was held that a lawyer who failed to pay his practising fee has no right of audience in court. The Court held further that non-compliance with statutory conditions renders one ineligible to practise, regardless of prior admission. This aligns with the evolving view of legal practice as a regulated continuum, not a one-time ceremonial gateway.
6. CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IS PART OF GLOBAL BEST PRACTICE: Globally, CPD is the gold standard: (a) In the United Kingdom, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) mandates annual CPD compliance for renewal of practising certificates; (b) In Canada, all provincial law societies (e.g., Law Society of Ontario) enforce minimum CPD hours, with failure attracting sanctions or suspension; (c) In Australia, legal practitioners must complete mandatory CPD (10 units/year in New South Wales), or face deregistration; (d) In the United States of America, the bar associations of most of the States (including California, New York, Florida, among others) mandate CLE (Continuing Legal Education) for licence renewal. Does my learned friend, Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, expect Nigeria to remain a professional anomaly or to rise to international parity?
7. CPD DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RULE OF LAW BUT UPHOLDS IT: The suggestion by learned Hameed Ajibola Jimoh that CPD-linked licensure violates constitutional or statutory rights rests on a grossly flawed premise, namely, that every lawyer has a vested, perpetual right to practise. Contrary to my learned friend’s erroneous supposition, it was held in DENLOYE v. MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE (1968) 1 All NLR 306, that the right to practise a profession can be subjected to regulation and discipline, so long as fair procedures exist. In my opinion, with due respect, NBA’s CPD regime is transparent, predictable, and designed to enhance competence, not to punish dissent.
8. COMPARING LAW TO OTHER PROFESSIONS IN NIGERIA (EXAMPLES: MEDICINE, AVIATION, ENGINEERING, ETC): Imagine a pilot flying an aircraft based on 1995 aerodynamics. Imagine a surgeon operating in 2025 using outdated 1990 protocols. Now imagine a lawyer relying on pre-2007 legal concepts to litigate constitutional issues in 2025. Just as periodic revalidation protects lives in medicine and aviation, CPD protects legal rights and upholds justice. If a single error by a lawyer can deprive a citizen of liberty, livelihood, or life, is it not imperative that the lawyer remain professionally updated? Perhaps CPD is made mandatory because of the numerous benefits of the program if effectively and pragmatically operated. First, an effective CPD program ensures lawyers remain up-to-date with evolving laws and legal skills. Updated lawyers reduce risks of negligence and offer better legal representation. Like doctors or pilots, lawyers must undergo continual learning to safeguard rights and justice. A CPD program reinforces integrity, professional discipline, and legal ethics. Third, an effective CPD program enhances global competitiveness by aligning participating lawyers with global practice standards. CPD allows exploration of new legal fields such as tech law, arbitration, data protection, sports law, AI, ADR, gender rights, climate law, and digital practice, among others. Fifth, an effective CPD program would help preserve the integrity of the legal profession because CPD is a tool for rebuilding public trust and upholding the profession’s dignity. Sixth, CPD programs reinforce networking, mentorship, knowledge sharing, collaboration, and exposure among affected legal practitioners. Seventh, CPD ensures continuous responsiveness to emerging legal and social issues. The CPD program strengthens NBA’s statutory duty to regulate legal practice. The Supreme Court case of GANI FAWEHINMI v. LPDC affirmed NBA’s integral role in discipline and regulation. It’s therefore seen that the CPD programme is a necessary and forward-looking mechanism for professional development in Nigeria, ensuring competence, protecting clients, elevating standards, and aligning Nigerian practice with global expectations. Contrary to the erroneous impression being created by my learned friend Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, CPD in the legal profession in Nigeria is not a burden, but a bridge to excellence, accountability, and global relevance.
9. NBA’s CPD-LINKED LICENCE SYSTEM IS NOT OPPRESSION BUT LAWFUL PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE: The fear that CPD is a tool of oppression is understandable, but grossly misplaced. As George Washington said, “Discipline is the soul of a profession.” Without standards, the legal profession loses credibility. Without growth, it loses relevance. The CPD program is an engine of growth. Rule 11(3) of the RPC 2023 provides that “Every legal practitioner shall participate in CPD activities as a condition for the issuance of NBA stamp and seal.” This provision is not punitive but protective of the public, the courts, and the profession itself, as already demonstrated above in its numerous benefits.
10. IS NBA JUST AN ORDINARY “PRIVATELY REGISTERED ASSOCIATION”? Lastly, Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh has described the NBA as an ordinary “privately registered association”. This expression reminds me of similar comments made in the past, and my response to such. On 29 August 2020, I had read a commentary by a respected learned silk and human rights advocate (the very respected Femi Falana, SAN) on the state of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in which he argued, inter alia, that despite NBA’s representation on statutory bodies, the NBA lacks the legal authority to regulate the conduct of lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar. The following day, on 30 August 2020, a learned colleague, Mr. Olasupo Ojo, posted on “the NBA Matters” WhatsApp platform that “the NBA is not a union but an ordinary association like that of pepper sellers registered with the CAC….” These erroneous statements had prompted my considered response, published on 31 August 2020 by DNL Legal and Style under the title “An Expository Inquisition into the Hallowed Place of the NBA as the Most Far-Reaching Regulator in Nigeria’s Legal Profession.” There, I argued, respectfully but firmly, that the NBA is not just a voluntary club or a mere trade union. Rather, both in law and in practice, NBA is the most deeply entrenched and far-reaching regulatory institution in Nigeria’s legal profession. The NBA is neither proximately nor remotely comparable to a “pepper-sellers’ association.” It is the statutory and normative institutional body responsible for representing, coordinating, disciplining, and setting ethical and professional standards for all lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar. This position is not based on sentiment but is anchored in legal reality, grounded in the Legal Practitioners Act, reinforced by the Rules of Professional Conduct, and affirmed by judicial pronouncements. Any contrary view reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulatory framework governing legal practice in Nigeria.
11. MY CONCLUDING WORDS: Let us embrace progress, not perish in protest. CPD is legally grounded. NBA’s role in it is statutory, not self-assumed. CPD enhances competence, credibility, and public trust. Global practice confirms CPD is not optional. The Registrar cannot override conditions prescribed by law. A legal profession that stops learning is a profession in decay. It’s accordingly suggested that learned friend Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, whose passion and scholarship are acknowledged, should refrain from resisting the tide of reform that elevates the Bar and the legal profession. This is not about NBA’s power. It is about professional dignity and service to justice. Solidarity without structure is slow suicide. Let us uphold standards that uplift us all. I stand with a Bar that evolves, educates, and elevates.
    Long live NBA!
    Long live the legal profession!
    Respectfully,
    Sylvester Udemezue
    Proctor,
    The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
    08039136749
    TheRealityMinister@gmail.com
    (24 June 2025)