NBA Defends Move To Discipline Senior Lawyer Over Election Suit

The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, has pushed back against claims of personal targeting, insisting that a disciplinary petition filed against prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, is strictly about upholding professional standards in legal practice.

In a detailed response shared on his X account on Monday, Osigwe described the petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) as a necessary step to examine how certain court processes were handled, rather than an attempt to settle scores or stifle dissent.

The disagreement centres on a lawsuit filed in Ibadan (Suit No. I/221/2026), where Okutepa served as lead counsel for claimants seeking to question the makeup of the NBA’s Electoral Committee ahead of the 2026 national elections.

Ex parte orders obtained in the case temporarily halted the committee’s operations, creating ripples within the association.

Osigwe made it clear that the petition does not challenge Okutepa’s right to take on the case or contest the committee’s formation.

“That right remains unquestionable,” he noted, adding that the real issue lies in whether full and honest disclosure was made to the court during the urgent, one-sided hearing.

He pointed out that the Electoral Committee was formally set up at an earlier National Executive Committee (NEC) gathering in Benin City.

According to Osigwe, records show a proper motion was moved, seconded, and carried, with Okutepa present and even contributing by presenting a security report right after the decision.

A communiqué released after the meeting, which was widely shared among lawyers, captured this resolution without any immediate objection from participants, including Okutepa. Video footage from the session is also said to confirm his attendance during the key discussions.

The NBA president raised concerns that these important details personally known to the counsel and one of the claimants may not have been fully presented when the interim orders were requested.

He questioned whether depending on incomplete meeting minutes, while leaving out firsthand knowledge of the proceedings, meets the high standards of openness expected in ex parte matters.

“Lawyers have a stricter duty in such applications because the court relies completely on their good faith,” Osigwe explained.

He stressed that the Rules of Professional Conduct require counsel to avoid withholding facts they know or should reasonably know.

Osigwe rejected suggestions that the petition amounts to intimidation or political interference.

He described it as an institutional decision aimed at letting the proper disciplinary body review the matter objectively.

He also defended the NBA’s choice not to support Okutepa’s continued membership on the Body of Benchers while the petition is pending, saying it would be inconsistent to do otherwise.

Reacting to the development, Okutepa has strongly denied any wrongdoing. In his own statement, he accused the NBA leadership of misusing institutional powers and interfering in ongoing court proceedings.

The senior lawyer maintained that his conduct stayed within legal bounds and expressed confidence in facing any disciplinary review.

This latest clash highlights the deep sensitivities surrounding preparations for the NBA’s 2026 elections.

Tensions have been building over the legitimacy and timing of key electoral structures, with earlier court interventions already affecting the process.

The LPDC is now expected to look into the petition and determine if there are grounds for further action.

For now, the exchange between the two senior lawyers has sparked fresh conversations within the Bar about the balance between vigorous advocacy and the ethical responsibilities lawyers owe to the courts.