NBA After the Election: Time to Heal the Bar

 

by Steven Dan-Asabe Aya 

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has survived its most difficult national election in recent years. But the greater challenge may have begun after the votes were counted.

The emergence of Mrs Oyinkansola Badejo-Okunsanya, SAN, as the 33rd President of the NBA was supposed to bring the curtain down on a fiercely contested electoral season and open a new chapter for Nigeria's foremost professional body of lawyers. Instead, the election has left behind questions, grievances and competing narratives that threaten to deepen divisions within a profession whose principal responsibility is to defend the rule of law.

Badejo-Okunsanya emerged with 12,317 votes, representing 47.18 per cent of the votes cast for the presidential position. Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, SAN, polled 7,934 votes, while Aare Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN, secured 5,855 votes. The Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) subsequently declared Badejo-Okunsanya the winner.

Ordinarily, the declaration of a winner should mark the beginning of reconciliation. But this election was anything but ordinary. Voting was disrupted by technical difficulties and a reported cyberattack on the electronic voting platform. There were complaints from voters about access to the platform and the receipt of authentication codes, while concerns were also raised about the overall credibility of the electronic process.

The controversy did not end with the declaration of the result. Akangbe has since filed a formal petition challenging the outcome, alleging, among other things, failures in the electronic voting platform, non-receipt of One-Time Passwords by eligible voters, the use of multiple voting websites and the extension of voting beyond the advertised deadline. He is asking the NBA's National Officers Election Appeal Committee to nullify the result and order a fresh election.

Those allegations remain allegations. They must be determined through the NBA's established electoral and appeals mechanisms, not through social media campaigns, personal attacks or public declarations of guilt. That distinction is particularly important because the organisation at the centre of this dispute is the Nigerian Bar Association — an institution whose members routinely go before courts to insist that allegations must be proved before they can become findings.

The NBA's own electoral timetable provides a constitutional route for resolving the dispute. Candidates had until July 27 to submit petitions, while the National Officers Election Appeals Committee is scheduled to determine the petitions within the stipulated period. The immediate responsibility of every stakeholder, therefore, should be to allow that process to work without intimidation, prejudgment or unnecessary political pressure.

But even if every petition is eventually resolved, the NBA will still have a bigger problem to address: the erosion of confidence among its members.

An association that exists to defend justice cannot afford to lose the confidence of a substantial part of its own membership in the process by which its leadership is chosen. The question is no longer simply who won the election. The deeper question is whether the Bar can persuade its members that the institution is bigger than any individual candidate, administration, faction or electoral committee.

That is where the incoming administration has an enormous responsibility.

Badejo-Okunsanya has already spoken publicly about the need for reconciliation and unity. She has said she intends to reach out to members and stakeholders, heal the hurt caused by the election and work towards putting the NBA's house in order. Those statements should now be converted into a deliberate institutional programme of reconciliation.

The first step should be an unequivocal commitment to respect the outcome of the formal appeal process. If the appeal committee upholds the election, the new administration should extend an open hand to the candidates who contested against her. If the committee reaches a different conclusion, every stakeholder should equally respect the lawful outcome. The credibility of the Bar cannot be built by demanding respect for institutions only when their decisions favour one side.

The second step should be an independent and comprehensive audit of the electronic voting process.

The NBA should not wait for the next election before examining what went wrong. The technical problems reported during the 2026 election, together with the allegations contained in the petitions, provide sufficient reason for a transparent post-election review. Such an exercise should examine the voting platform, authentication process, cybersecurity arrangements, voter access, transmission of results, the management of technical disruptions and the decision-making process during the crisis.

The findings should be made available to members. If the system worked properly, the audit should demonstrate that. If weaknesses existed, the NBA should identify them openly and correct them. Attempting to bury technical failures in the hope that the controversy will disappear would only guarantee that the same arguments return at the next election.

Third, the NBA should consider establishing a permanent electoral reform committee comprising respected members of the Bar who are sufficiently removed from partisan electoral interests. Its mandate should include reviewing the constitutional and technological framework governing national elections and recommending reforms before the next electoral cycle.

The profession should also reconsider how disagreements among lawyers are handled during election seasons. Competition is inevitable. Ambition is not necessarily a problem. Lawyers, like other professionals, have the right to seek leadership positions. The problem begins when political competition becomes so bitter that colleagues who have spent decades defending the rule of law begin treating one another as enemies.

The NBA must reject that culture.

The events surrounding the 2026 election also demonstrate the need for greater transparency before, during and after elections. Voters should have access to clear information about the electoral register, voting technology, authentication procedures, cybersecurity safeguards, incident-response mechanisms and the process for resolving complaints. The more opaque the system appears, the easier it becomes for suspicion to flourish.

There is another lesson that should not be lost in the controversy: external interference in the affairs of the Bar must be treated with equal seriousness.

Before the election, the NBA publicly rejected what it described as purported directives attributed to the Attorney-General of the Federation concerning the postponement of the election, the disbandment of the electoral committee, the appointment of a caretaker committee and proposed changes to the Association's electoral system. The NBA insisted that its constitutional organs alone had authority over its internal electoral process.

The Court of Appeal subsequently set aside proceedings and interim orders from an Oyo State High Court that had sought to halt the national election, holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction.

These events should remind the Bar of something fundamental: an independent legal profession is important not because lawyers are entitled to privileges, but because society needs a professional body capable of speaking fearlessly when the rule of law is threatened.

For that reason, the NBA cannot afford to become a replica of the political institutions it routinely criticises.

The Bar must be capable of demonstrating that disagreement does not have to produce permanent division; that elections can be fiercely contested without destroying relationships; that losing a contest does not mean losing one's place in the profession; and that winning an election does not give the victor ownership of the institution.

The incoming administration therefore needs more than a programme of professional reforms. It needs a reconciliation agenda.

Such an agenda could include an immediate meeting with all presidential candidates, consultations with former NBA presidents and respected senior lawyers, engagement with branch chairmen and young lawyers, and the creation of a structured platform through which grievances arising from the election can be discussed constructively.

The outgoing administration also has a role to play. Whatever disagreements may have surrounded the electoral process, the transition should be handled in a manner that strengthens institutional continuity rather than transferring unresolved disputes from one administration to another.

And the candidates who contested the election have an equally important responsibility.

Those who believe they were wronged have every right to pursue the remedies available under the NBA Constitution and the law. But once those processes are exhausted, the profession will expect them to place the institution above personal disappointment. That is not a demand for silence. It is a demand for statesmanship. The same principle applies to supporters.

Social media has made it remarkably easy for professional disagreements to become personal wars. Lawyers who would ordinarily exchange measured arguments in court can quickly descend into insults and accusations online. The NBA should actively discourage such conduct and promote a culture in which criticism is directed at policies, procedures and decisions rather than personalities.

The Bar cannot credibly demand civility from politicians, judges, police officers and public officials while tolerating incivility within its own ranks.  There is still time to turn the current crisis into an opportunity.

The election has exposed weaknesses that the NBA can now address. The disputes have revealed areas where members want greater transparency. The controversy surrounding electronic voting has created an opportunity to build a stronger and independently verifiable electoral system. And the divisions that emerged during the campaign can become the starting point for a broader conversation about the future of the legal profession.

The new administration should therefore resist the temptation to govern only for those who supported it.

Its first major victory should not be another policy announcement. It should be the restoration of trust. The NBA is too important to Nigeria's democracy to remain permanently divided by an election.

Its members appear before courts to defend citizens whose rights have been violated. They challenge unconstitutional actions by governments. They demand accountability from public institutions. They speak about judicial independence, democratic governance and the rule of law. Those principles must begin at home.

The 2026 election has been held. The result has been declared. The petitions will take their constitutional course. What happens next, however, is entirely within the collective hands of the Nigerian Bar.

The question before the profession is therefore no longer simply who won the election?

The more important question is: can the Bar now win back the confidence of its own members?

That is the real test of the new administration.

And if the NBA succeeds in turning today's division into tomorrow's reform, the controversy surrounding the 2026 election may eventually be remembered not as the moment the Bar came apart, but  as the moment it decided to rebuild itself.