A Growing Controversy in Nigeria’s Legal Profession
A fresh controversy has erupted within Nigeria’s legal community, drawing attention to the internal dynamics and ethical standards of the profession. The dispute centers around a petition filed by Afam Osigwe, the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), seeking the removal of Chief Jibrin Okutepa (SAN) from the Body of Benchers. This development has sparked intense debate among legal practitioners and raised questions about professional accountability and the integrity of the legal system.
The Petition and Its Implications
The petition was reportedly submitted to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) and the Body of Benchers. According to Okutepa, the move against him is not only unjustified but also targeted, suggesting that the NBA President has overstepped his authority. In a public response on X (formerly Twitter), Okutepa stated, “I am not afraid of your manipulations,” emphasizing that he would not be intimidated by the actions taken against him.
Okutepa alleged that the NBA President did more than simply file a petition. He claimed that Osigwe used his position to lobby individuals who were responsible for educating him, aiming to undermine his standing within the profession. Furthermore, Okutepa suggested that the lobbying was specifically intended to block his reappointment to the Body of Benchers. He added, “He sought to cause my name to be removed from the list of those to be re-appointed as members of the Body of Benchers.”
Despite these allegations, Okutepa reaffirmed his commitment to upholding the rule of law and integrity within the legal profession. “I am not afraid. No amount of pressure or manipulation will deter me from standing for what is right,” he said.
The NBA President’s Defense
In response to Okutepa’s claims, Afam Osigwe defended his petition, insisting that it was rooted in “professional accountability” rather than any form of witch-hunt. He dismissed allegations of abuse of office and manipulation, stating, “Nothing can be farther from the truth.” Osigwe expressed amusement rather than anger at Okutepa’s allegations, noting that he felt compelled to respond publicly to prevent the misleading narrative from gaining traction.
Osigwe clarified that the petition before the LPDC was not about Okutepa’s right to take up a legal brief or challenge the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the NBA. He emphasized that this right is unquestionable and firmly rooted in the adversarial system. However, the issue at hand concerns the manner in which this right was exercised and whether ethical obligations owed to the court were fully observed, particularly in ex parte proceedings.
According to Osigwe, the petition arose from a serious professional concern deserving examination, especially regarding Suit No. I/221/2026 and the procurement of ex parte orders affecting the NBA’s electoral process. He maintained that the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) was duly constituted at a National Executive Committee meeting in Benin, following established procedures.
“A motion for the constitution of the ECNBA was formally moved, seconded, and adopted by NEC. Chief Okutepa (SAN) was present throughout the proceedings and actively participated,” Osigwe stated. He added that a communiqué issued after the meeting reflected the decision and was circulated widely within the Bar, remaining unchallenged.
Ethical Considerations and Professional Standards
Osigwe raised concerns about the ex parte application being pursued without disclosing that both counsel and the claimant were present at the meeting where the ECNBA was constituted. He questioned whether the failure to disclose these facts in an ex parte application calls for scrutiny.
He stressed that lawyers are bound by strict ethical duties, particularly in ex parte proceedings. “A lawyer is not permitted to rely solely on client instructions where he knows, or ought reasonably to know, that material facts are being withheld or misrepresented. The obligation is even stricter in ex parte proceedings, where the court depends entirely on the utmost good faith of counsel,” he said.
Rejecting claims of victimisation, Osigwe stated that the petition should not be framed as intimidation or victimisation. He emphasized that the LPDC exists precisely to examine allegations of professional misconduct. Addressing allegations that he influenced Okutepa’s removal from the Body of Benchers, Osigwe explained that the NBA merely exercised its discretion. “The NBA exercised its discretion not to recommend his renewal in light of the pending petition,” he said.
Conclusion: A Matter of Ethics and Integrity
Osigwe concluded that the matter should be left to the appropriate disciplinary process. “The petition is an institutional step taken in good faith. It is not a personal attack. It is not a political contest. The determination of these issues should properly lie with the disciplinary process, not in the arena of public debate,” he added.
This controversy highlights the importance of maintaining ethical standards within the legal profession. As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on preserving the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that all practitioners adhere to the highest standards of conduct.
