*Says “Display Of Candidates’ Photographs Was Not Mandatory Under Our Guidelines”
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association has admitted that the photographs of two candidates were omitted from the electronic ballot used for the 2026 national officers election, but has told the NBA National Officers Election Appeals Committee that the omission was neither deliberate nor capable of affecting the outcome, and that both petitions built on it should be dismissed.
The Committee’s position is set out in two replies dated 3 August 2026 and filed by its counsel, High Chief Aikhunegbe A. Malik, SAN, of A. A. Malik & Co., in the appeals brought by Barth Okoye Aniche, Esq., who contested the office of General Secretary, and Chinwendu Ugochukwu, Esq., who contested the office of Welfare Secretary.
The Preliminary Objection
In both replies, the Committee raises a preliminary objection urging the Appeals Committee to strike out or dismiss the petitions in their entirety.
It contends that each petition “is fundamentally defective and incurably incompetent,” having been filed “contrary to and in flagrant violation of the mandatory statutory prescription of Paragraph 3, Part X of the 2nd Schedule to the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association, 2015 (as amended in 2025).”
It further objects to the joinder of the other candidates, stating that the parties joined as third to sixth respondents in the Aniche petition, and as third to fifth respondents in the Ugochukwu petition, “are not cognizable under Paragraph 3, Part X of the 2nd Schedule to the NBA Constitution,” and are “not proper, necessary, essential, relevant, material, integral or requisite parties.”
The Committee also argues that each petition “is largely speculative, founded on conjectures, assumptions, hypothesis and anticipated facts,” and therefore discloses no reasonable cause of action, and that the four grounds relied upon “are alien to the NBA Constitution and are, therefore, not cognizable.” On that basis, it submits that each petition “is fatally infested with the jurisdictional vice of incompetence.”
“Free, Fair, Transparent And Credible”
Without prejudice to the objection, the Committee sets out its account of the exercise in identical terms in both replies.
It states that it is a creation of the NBA Constitution vested with sole responsibility for conducting elections into national offices and for the election of the Association’s representatives in the General Council of the Bar, and that it “conducted the 2026 national elections on 18th July, 2026 in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner.”
It says it acted “completely devoid of any external control and influence,” that for the entire duration of the process it “maintained truthfulness and honesty in all its activities,” and that it performed its functions “in a manner that was strictly impartial, non-partisan and politically neutral.”
It adds a direct denial of improper motive. “No step, action or decision of the 1st Respondent was taken, undertaken, done or arrived at with a view to witch-hunt, punish, de-market or deregister any of the candidates in the elections.”
The Conduct Of The Poll
According to both replies, the election held on Saturday, 18 July 2026 and “lasted for 24 hours, starting from 07.35hr on 18.07.26 and terminating at 07.35hr on 19.07.26.”
The Committee states that elections into all elective offices of the National Executive Committee, and for the Association’s representatives on the General Council of the Bar, were held simultaneously “with the use of a single electronic ballot paper by each voter,” describing the exercise as “a common mechanical and electronic process, one not separated, segregated or detached from the other.” The results for all positions were declared “in one fell swoop, using a single result sheet, otherwise known as the Final Declaration.”
On turnout, it states that “a total of 26,184 unique voters, representing 31.9% of the total registered voters of 82,213, spread across all the branches of the Association, participated in the election.”
It maintains that the exercise complied with the governing instruments. “The election was conducted in substantial compliance with the NBA Constitution and the Guidelines issued by the 1st Respondent. There was no incidence of vote duplication, no recorded case of voting outside the voting window, and the votes cast electronically match exactly with the tally declared.”
The Committee also relies on its publication of the voters’ list as evidence of openness, stating that less than 10 hours after declaring the winners it released to members and candidates “a comprehensive list of actual voters, in redacted form, just to shield their private data,” and that “this singular act speaks to the transparency and candidness of the election process and, as well, holds it up for scrutiny.”
Certificates of Return, it says, were issued to all the returned winners on Monday, 20 July 2026 at a ceremony held at its office.
The Results In Both Contests
For the office of General Secretary, the Committee lists the votes as follows: Afam O. Okeke, 8,478; Dr Rapulu Ernest Nduka, 6,188; Chidi Ezenwafor, 4,560; Okey Leo Ohagba, 4,100; Nnaebuka Onyebuchi Nwaeze, 1,147; and Barth Okoye Aniche, 772. It declared and returned Afam O. Okeke as winner on Sunday, 19 July 2026.
For the office of Welfare Secretary, it lists the votes as: Audrey Chinelo Ofoegbunam, 14,911; Sir Oaikhena Osagie, 5,187; Akinwunmi Laleye, 2,234; Chinwendu Ugochukwu, 1,202; and Ernest Ezindu Uwanaka, 1,140. Audrey Chinelo Ofoegbunam was declared and returned as winner on the same day.
“We Admit And Regret The Omission”
The core of both replies is the Committee’s treatment of the missing photographs, and on this it makes a concession.
“The 1st Respondent admits and regrets the omission of the Appellant’s photograph on the electronic ballot used for the election, but states that the omission was not deliberate, premeditated and calculated to de-market or de-register the Appellant,” it states in each reply.
It attributes the omission to the same incident it has relied on elsewhere in the election litigation. “The omission of the Appellant’s photograph on the live electronic voting portal was as a result of the coordinated cyberattacks that the voting domain deployed by the 1st Respondent was subjected to, and which inherently impacted the stored data and made it difficult to effect correction, given that the election had previously been suspended.”
It denies that the omission amounted to a fundamental error or material irregularity, maintaining that the process was conducted in substantial compliance with the Constitution and its Guidelines.
“Their Names Remained On The Ballot”
The Committee’s substantive answer is that the omission was cosmetic rather than disqualifying.
In each case it states that the appellant “was a candidate at the election, hence his full name was conspicuously indicated and his photograph space displayed on the voting domain/portal, for the benefit of all the registered voters,” and that “the omission affected the display of the Appellant’s photograph but did not affect the inclusion of his name on the ballot or his eligibility to contest the election.”
It uses the votes each appellant polled as proof that voters found them. Members “duly identified the Appellant by his name on the voting domain and accordingly cast their votes for him, hence the 772 votes that the Appellant polled,” it says in the Aniche reply, and makes the corresponding point in the Ugochukwu reply by reference to her 1,202 votes.
It also relies on the standing of the electorate. “Members of the Association are educated, well informed and very discernible. It is doubtful whether any registered voter was misled by the fact of the omission of the Appellant’s photograph in the ballot.”
On the profile of each appellant, it says of Aniche that his curriculum vitae, published for the benefit of members and registered voters, shows that he “has held different elective positions at both local and national levels,” and of Ugochukwu that she “is a past Welfare Secretary of the NBA Lagos Branch,” so that each is “very well known by name, irrespective of whether the photograph was displayed.”
On The Disputed Notice
Both appellants alleged that a public notice on the voting portal stated that all valid candidates had their pictures on display, from which voters could conclude that a candidate without a photograph was no longer in the race. The Committee denies it.
“The 1st Respondent vehemently denies the allegation that it displayed a public notice on the voting portal stating that ‘all valid candidates had their pictures on display’. The allegation is false, incorrect, misleading, mendacious and deliberately concocted to mislead the Committee,” each reply states, adding that the appellant will be put to the strictest proof.
The Committee then sets out what it says the notice actually said, in identical terms in both replies. “All general and zonal candidates are displayed on this ballot. Candidate photographs are displayed clearly with each candidate name directly underneath. Your mapped zone is shown for information only and does not restrict candidate selection.”
It submits that the wording “merely describes the format of the electronic ballot and does not represent that the validity of a candidate’s participation in the election was dependent on the display of his or her photograph.”
It also rejects what it calls the appellants’ “erroneous, specious, fallacious, unfounded, and baseless interpretation or suggestion” regarding the opener inscribed at the top of the electronic ballot.
On Disqualification And On The Protest Letters
The Committee states that aspirants who did not meet the criteria were disqualified and the disqualifications communicated to members by its publication dated 28 May 2026, that neither appellant was among them, and that those who were disqualified “were not featured or listed in the electronic voting portal deployed by the 1st Respondent for the election on 18.07.2026.”
On the appellants’ protests, the two replies diverge. In the Aniche matter, the Committee accepts that a written protest dated 18 July 2026 was submitted, but states that it “was only assessed by the Secretary of the 1st Respondent on 20.07.2026, after it had concluded the election process, announced the result and presented Certificates of Return,” explaining that its members were “all involved in the conduct of the election and fully mobilized to the situation/viewing centre where the process was beamed real time.”
In the Ugochukwu matter, it denies that any protest was sent. “The Appellant’s claim that she submitted a protest letter via email to the 1st Respondent on 18th July 2026 is false. This assertion is wholly unsubstantiated, as the Appellant failed to attach the alleged protest letter she referenced.”
On Alleged Disenfranchisement
The Committee denies that any voter was prevented from voting for either appellant by reason of the omission.
“Throughout the period of the election, particularly the voting window, no voter complained to the 1st Respondent of their inability to vote for any candidate of their choice on account of photograph omission,” it states.
It contends that the annexures relied upon by the appellants do not establish that any supporter refrained from voting in the belief that the candidate had been removed from the ballot, describing those assertions as “speculative, self-serving and unsupported by any credible evidence.”
It goes further, submitting that the appellants’ own annexures cut against them, in that they “clearly demonstrate that the individuals referred to therein knew the identity of the candidate they intended to vote for, they successfully located the Appellant’s name on the electronic ballot and proceeded to cast their votes accordingly.”
“Nowhere In Our Guidelines”
Finally, the Committee denies that it was under any obligation to display photographs at all.
“Nowhere in its Guidelines for the just concluded National Elections was it stipulated that profile photographs of the candidates will be mandatorily displayed. The initiative was only premised on the request of multiple candidates as communicated vide the 1st Respondent’s email of 4th July, 2026,” it states in both replies.
The Prayer
Each reply closes in the same terms. “WHEREOF the 1st Respondent prays this Honourable Committee to dismiss this Petition as lacking in merit, substance or bona fide sincerity. The Petition, viewed from every prism, is frivolous, vexatious, highly misconceived and liable to be dismissed.”
The two replies turn on a distinction the Appeals Committee will have to rule on: between an irregularity that occurred and an irregularity that changed the result. The Committee concedes the first and contests the second, and it does so on the settled principle in election jurisprudence that non-compliance alone does not void a poll unless it substantially affected the outcome. On the figures it pleads, that argument is comfortable in both contests. Aniche polled 772 votes against the winner’s 8,478, and Ugochukwu polled 1,202 against 14,911, so the margins are large enough that any recoverable shortfall attributable to a missing photograph would have to be very substantial indeed.
The more consequential feature of these replies is the reason given for the omission. By attributing the missing photographs to the coordinated cyberattack and its effect on stored data, the Committee has now placed that incident at the centre of its defence in a second class of petition. It has also, in doing so, tied these appeals to the presidential petition of Lateef Akangbe, SAN, in which the existence and effect of the same attack is directly in issue and in which the Committee is being pressed to produce logs and technical records it has so far not disclosed. The photographs are on the Committee’s own case a consequence of the attack; if the attack is not established, the explanation for the omission goes with it.
Also worth noting is the argument in the alternative that runs through both replies. The Committee says the omission was caused by the attack, and separately that display of photographs was never mandatory under its Guidelines and was only introduced at the request of candidates. Those two positions can stand together, but the second is the stronger of the two, because it does not depend on proving anything about the attack at all.
Editorial notes: Three points to check before publishing. The Ugochukwu reply states that six candidates contested the office of Welfare Secretary but lists only five, so confirm the correct number and whether a candidate has been omitted from the schedule. The two replies also give different dates for the release of the voters’ list, 20 July in the Aniche reply and 19 July in the Ugochukwu reply. Finally, the spelling of the first appellant’s surname alternates between Aniche and Anichie within the same document, and the winner’s surname appears as both Ofoegbunam and Ofoegbulam; confirm both against the Final Declaration of Results. These are untested pleadings in a live proceeding, and the two appellants are entitled to a right of reply.
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s Electronic Evidence Books Now” — Essential Guides On Evidence Act, Case Law And Digital Proof
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
