In a dramatic turn that has surprised the Nigerian legal community, Chief Jibrin Samuel Okutepa SAN, former Bencher and Chief Prosecutor of the NBA at the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, and the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe SAN, have reconciled ending one of the most bitter and public feuds between senior members of the Bar in recent memory.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
A photograph obtained by TheNigeriaLawyer shows both Senior Advocates signing what appears to be a reconciliation in the office of J.J. Usman SAN, the Abuja-based principal of JJ Usman & Co, who reportedly championed and brokered the peace between the two men.
The reconciliation took place on Friday, according to sources familiar with the development. However, the specific terms and conditions of the agreement have not been made public, leaving the legal community to speculate about what concessions, if any, were made by either side on the issues that had driven them to the brink of an irreparable rupture.
The reconciliation marks an extraordinary reversal for two men who had spent months trading increasingly grave public allegations against each other allegations that included abuse of power, professional misconduct, witch-hunting, forgery, interference with pending litigation, unconstitutional conduct, corrupt use of office, and contempt of court.
Okutepa had publicly demanded Osigwe’s resignation as NBA President. Osigwe had filed a petition against Okutepa to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. Okutepa’s name had been removed from the Body of Benchers reappointment list allegedly at Osigwe’s instigation. And both men had published detailed statements attacking each other’s professional conduct and integrity in language unprecedented between two Senior Advocates of Nigeria.
That the same two men were photographed on Friday signing a peace agreement in a colleague’s office represents one of the most significant developments in the NBA’s internal politics ahead of the 2026 elections.
The dispute between Okutepa and Osigwe centred on several interconnected issues relating to the NBA’s electoral process and governance.
At its core was the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association. Okutepa, who served as lead counsel in two cases challenging the ECNBA’s composition before the High Court of Oyo State in Ibadan, accused Osigwe of unconstitutionally hand-picking members of the electoral committee rather than allowing the NBA’s National Executive Committee to exercise its constitutional power of appointment.
Okutepa went further, alleging that the ECNBA was “constituted to rig the 2026 NBA election in favour of your preferred and anointed aspirant and or candidate” — a grave accusation that struck at the heart of the NBA’s democratic process.
Osigwe denied this characterisation, maintaining that the ECNBA was properly constituted through a motion moved, seconded, and adopted at the NEC meeting in Benin — a meeting at which Okutepa was present and participated, including presenting a committee report shortly after the ECNBA’s ratification.
The dispute escalated sharply when Osigwe filed a petition against Okutepa to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, alleging that Okutepa had failed to disclose material facts during ex parte proceedings before the Oyo State High Court — specifically, that both he and the first claimant were present at the Benin NEC meeting where the ECNBA was constituted.
Osigwe framed the petition as a matter of professional accountability, stating: “The concern is whether, in the course of exercising the right to challenge the ECNBA, the ethical obligations owed to the court, particularly in ex parte proceedings, were fully observed.”
Okutepa rejected the petition entirely, accusing Osigwe of acting as “the accuser, the prosecutor and judge all rolled in one” and of weaponising the disciplinary process against a lawyer who had accepted a brief against him.
“He filed a petition against me because in his misconceived view, it is professional misconduct to accept to be lead counsel in the two cases filed against his unconstitutional composition of ECNBA,” Okutepa stated.
The dispute reached its most personal dimension when Okutepa’s name was removed from the list of those to be reappointed as members of the Body of Benchers under Section 3(1)(l) of the Legal Practitioners Act.
Okutepa alleged that Osigwe used his position to lobby for his exclusion before the petition had even been served on him or heard by the LPDC effectively punishing him before any determination of guilt.
Osigwe maintained that the NBA “merely exercised its discretion not to recommend his renewal in light of the pending petition,” arguing it would have been inconsistent to recommend someone whose conduct was simultaneously being referred for disciplinary scrutiny.
Okutepa countered that his 87 per cent attendance grade and his appointment under Section 3(1)(l) as an “eminent legal practitioner” rather than as an NBA representative meant the NBA had no power to block his reappointment.
Against this backdrop of escalating hostilities, the intervention of J.J. Usman SAN appears to have produced a breakthrough that many in the legal community thought impossible.
Sources indicated that efforts toward reconciliation had been underway for some time, with both sides eventually agreeing to terms that enabled the Friday signing.
The photograph of Okutepa and Osigwe sitting together in Usman’s office, pens in hand, signing a document that formally ends their feud, stands in stark contrast to the toxic public exchanges of the preceding months exchanges in which Okutepa described Osigwe’s conduct as “worse than those you have duties and responsibilities to hold accountable” and Osigwe described Okutepa’s public statements as deserving of “more amusement than anger.”
While the reconciliation is being welcomed across the legal community, several questions remain unanswered.
What happens to the LPDC petition? Will Osigwe withdraw it as part of the reconciliation, or will it continue through the disciplinary process? What about Okutepa’s Body of Benchers reappointment will his name be restored? What are the terms regarding the pending cases before the Oyo State High Court challenging the ECNBA’s composition will those continue or be withdrawn? And does the reconciliation extend to the broader NBA electoral disputes, or is it limited to the personal differences between the two men?
The silence on these details means the full significance of the reconciliation cannot yet be assessed. If the terms include withdrawal of the petition and restoration of Okutepa’s Bencher status, it would represent a significant concession by the NBA President. If the terms are limited to a ceasefire on public statements without substantive changes, the underlying issues could resurface.
The reconciliation carries significant implications for the forthcoming NBA presidential elections.
Okutepa had positioned himself as the leading critic of the ECNBA’s composition and, by extension, of the NBA President’s handling of the electoral process. His public allegations that the electoral committee was constituted to favour a specific candidate had cast a shadow over the entire election.
A genuine reconciliation that addresses the substantive concerns about the ECNBA could clear the path for elections that are perceived as legitimate by all candidates and the broader legal community. A superficial reconciliation that papers over unresolved issues could merely postpone the crisis.
The role of J.J. Usman SAN in brokering the peace deserves recognition. In a profession where ego, pride, and public reputation often prevent senior practitioners from backing down from stated positions, convincing two Senior Advocates of Nigeria to move from publicly demanding each other’s professional ruin to signing a reconciliation agreement requires exceptional diplomatic skill and the trust of both parties.
The peace between two of its most prominent members removes one source of internal division at a time when the NBA faces multiple external challenges potentially allowing the Association to present a more united front on the issues that affect all lawyers.
Whether the reconciliation holds, and whether it addresses the substantive governance and electoral concerns that gave rise to the dispute, will become clear in the coming weeks as the NBA moves toward its elections and the legal profession navigates one of its most turbulent periods.
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
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
________________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
