*Alleges NBA Influence, Demands Fresh Hearing
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF) has petitioned both the Senate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives, alleging denial of fair hearing and grave procedural irregularities during the public hearing on the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) Bill held on December 18, 2025.
In separate but identical petitions dated December 19, 2025, ABLIF formally complained against what it described as a “selective hearing” conducted by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters.
According to the petition signed by National Convener Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, Esq., and National Secretary Christabel Zoe Ayuk, Esq., ABLIF duly prepared and submitted its memorandum on the LPA Bill within time, having:
- Submitted an advance copy on Sunday, December 15, 2025; and
- Submitted the acknowledged hard copy (along with CD-soft copy) on Monday, December 16, 2025, well before the expiration of the deadline announced by the Committee.
On the day of the hearing, December 18, 2025, the representative of ABLIF was physically present from commencement to the close of the proceedings and was formally recorded on the Committee’s Register of Visitors as No. 4 under the name “Hameed A. Jimoh, Esq.”, clearly evidencing attendance, identification, and readiness to participate.
Despite this clear record of presence and compliance, ABLIF was “neither called upon nor recognized” to make oral submissions, contrary to established practice for public hearings.
Contrary to the very essence of a public hearing, ABLIF was excluded notwithstanding that:
- Its memorandum was properly submitted;
- Its acknowledged copy was in its possession; and
- Its memorandum was physically placed on the table before the Committee alongside other memoranda.
Shockingly, organizations that “submitted their memoranda as late as the previous day” (as openly admitted by one presenter) were allowed to speak, while ABLIF was deliberately excluded.
Credible information available to ABLIF indicates that the exclusion was “premeditated”, as there was a deliberate attempt not to recognize, identify, or call ABLIF to make submissions.
It was only after ABLIF’s representative insisted and raised the acknowledged copy of the memorandum that members of the Committee opened the envelope, confirmed that ABLIF had indeed complied with all requirements, and brought out the memorandum.
Upon realizing this fact, the Chairman of the Committee “abruptly ended the hearing”, thereby effectively preventing ABLIF from exercising its constitutional right to be heard.
ABLIF stated, and reasonably believes, that the selective exclusion complained of was not accidental, but was motivated by ABLIF’s principled and public opposition to the monopoly asserted by the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) over the entire legal profession.
“ABLIF has consistently maintained a public-interest stance against the commercialisation of the legal profession by the NBA as a private association, and has advocated for bar-licensing freedom, pluralism, and reforms that decentralise regulatory control in the best interest of access to justice,” the petition stated.
“It is ABLIF’s firm position that the selective justice meted out at the hearing would not have occurred without the influence, pressure, or tacit endorsement of the NBA, whose dominant position and interests are directly implicated by the issues raised in ABLIF’s memorandum on the LPA Bill,” the organization stated.
“Where a public hearing excludes a duly registered and present stakeholder solely because of its viewpoints or advocacy positions, such exclusion amounts to viewpoint discrimination, undermines legislative independence, and offends the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing,” ABLIF argued.
ABLIF outlined several legal and constitutional implications of the Committee’s actions:
1. Selective Hearing, Not Public Hearing: The process adopted at the hearing amounted to a “selective hearing”, not a public hearing as contemplated by law and legislative practice.
2. Violation of Fair Hearing Rights: The actions of the Committee constitute a clear violation of the “right to fair hearing” guaranteed under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
3. Undermines Legislative Integrity: Public hearings are meant to be inclusive, transparent, and participatory, especially where stakeholders have complied with all procedural requirements.
4. Damages Public Confidence: The exclusion of ABLIF undermines:
- Legislative transparency;
- Public confidence in the National Assembly; and
- The legitimacy of any outcome arising from such a flawed process.
ABLIF further stated, with utmost seriousness and responsibility, that the selective justice meted out at the said hearing “appears to be directly connected to ABLIF’s well-known and consistent advocacy against the monopoly of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) over the entire legal profession, and its opposition to the commercialisation and privatization of legal practice regulation by the NBA as a private association.”
“ABLIF reasonably believes that such selective treatment would not and could not have occurred without external influence, particularly the undue influence of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), whose institutional interests are directly challenged by ABLIF’s advocacy for bar licence freedom and plural, transparent regulation of the legal profession.”
“This development raises grave concerns about regulatory capture, improper influence on legislative processes, and the silencing of dissenting professional voices, all of which are incompatible with democratic law-making and the oversight responsibilities of the House of Representatives,” the petition stated.
ABLIF’S POSITION
ABLIF firmly maintains that:
- What transpired cannot, in good conscience and in law, be described as a public hearing;
- The hearing was conducted in a manner that selectively favored certain groups while deliberately sidelining others;
- Any report or recommendation emanating from such a process is fundamentally defective;
- The exclusion of ABLIF, despite timely submission and recorded presence, was unjustifiable and unconstitutional;
- Legislative processes must not only be fair but must also be seen to be fair.
RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM SENATE
In view of the foregoing, ABLIF respectfully requested the Senate President and the Senate to:
- Investigate the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the purported public hearing on the LPA Bill;
- Declare that the hearing, as conducted, failed to meet the minimum standards of a public hearing;
- Direct that a fresh, inclusive, and transparent public hearing be conducted;
- Ensure that ABLIF and other similarly affected stakeholders are given full opportunity to make oral submissions;
- Take appropriate administrative steps to prevent a recurrence of such denial of fair hearing in future legislative processes.
RELIEFS SOUGHT FROM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
In the interest of justice, transparency, and institutional credibility, ABLIF respectfully urged the Rt. Hon. Speaker to:
- Order a thorough investigation into the conduct of the Committee during the purported public hearing on the LPA Bill;
- Declare the hearing procedurally defective and incapable of forming a valid basis for legislative conclusions;
- Direct the conduct of a fresh, inclusive, and transparent public hearing on the LPA Bill;
- Ensure that ABLIF and other affected stakeholders are afforded equal opportunity to make oral submissions;
- Direct that no reliance be placed on any report or recommendation arising from the said hearing pending corrective action;
- Issue appropriate institutional directives or safeguards to prevent recurrence of selective or exclusionary hearings.
ANNEXES PROVIDED
ABLIF attached three annexes to support its petition:
Annex A: The Public Notice for public hearing issued by the Senate Committee for Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters.
Annex B: Evidence of advance submission dated December 15, 2025.
Annex C: Acknowledged copy of ABLIF memorandum submitted on December 16, 2025.
WHO IS ABLIF?
ABLIF describes itself as a professional advocacy body (in the Senate petition) and a public-interest advocacy platform (in the House petition) with direct and substantial interest in matters relating to bar licensing, regulation of legal practice, access to justice, and the protection of professional freedoms within the Nigerian legal profession.
CONTEXT: ONGOING DEBATE ON LEGAL PROFESSION REGULATION
The petition comes amid ongoing debates about the regulation of the legal profession in Nigeria, with ABLIF advocating for “bar-licensing freedom” and reforms that would end what it describes as the NBA’s monopoly over legal practice.
The organization has consistently opposed what it calls the “commercialisation of the legal profession by the NBA as a private association.”
IMPLICATIONS
The petition raises serious questions about:
- The fairness and transparency of legislative public hearings
- The potential influence of powerful professional associations on legislative processes
- The protection of dissenting or minority viewpoints in policy-making
- The constitutional guarantee of fair hearing in legislative proceedings
- The integrity of reports and recommendations based on potentially flawed hearings
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
The core constitutional issue raised is whether the Committee’s conduct violated Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the right to fair hearing.
While Section 36 is traditionally applied to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, ABLIF argues that the principles of fair hearing should extend to legislative public hearings, particularly where stakeholders have complied with all procedural requirements.
PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS
The petition also raises procedural questions about:
- Whether organizations that submit memoranda timely are entitled to oral presentation
- Whether committees can selectively allow some presenters while excluding others who have complied with all requirements
- Whether abruptly ending a hearing after becoming aware of a compliant stakeholder’s presence constitutes denial of fair hearing
- Whether external influence (if proven) on committee proceedings would invalidate the hearing
WHAT NEXT?
The petition is now before both the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It remains to be seen whether either legislative leader will:
- Order an investigation into the allegations
- Declare the December 18 hearing defective
- Direct a fresh public hearing
- Take administrative steps to prevent recurrence
The response of the legislative leadership to this petition could have significant implications for:
- The Legal Practitioners Act Bill currently under consideration
- Future public hearings conducted by National Assembly committees
- The relationship between the National Assembly and powerful professional associations
- The protection of minority or dissenting voices in legislative processes
The petition brings to the fore ongoing tensions between the NBA establishment and groups like ABLIF that advocate for alternative models of regulating the legal profession.
While the NBA maintains that it serves as the unified voice of the legal profession and provides necessary professional standards and discipline, groups like ABLIF argue for a more pluralistic approach that would allow for multiple bar associations or alternative regulatory models.
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
_______________________________________________________________________
