Owerri-based lawyer and former Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri Branch, Chinedu Agu, has faulted the intervention of the Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Paul Obinatu, in the controversy surrounding the utilisation of ₦100 million released by the Imo State Government to the NBA Owerri Branch, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through full financial disclosure and accountability rather than appeals for forgiveness.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
Agu, in a detailed response dated September 29, 2026, also announced that he had invoked the Imo State Freedom of Information Law to demand the Branch’s bank statements and supporting financial records, while stating that he and other concerned lawyers intended to invite the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate the movement of the funds received by the Branch in August and September.
His intervention followed Obinatu’s September 28 letter titled “NBA Owerri Branch Stand Off – My Position!”, in which the Attorney-General clarified that the money released to the six NBA branches in Imo State was not intended exclusively for sponsorship of delegates to the 2026 NBA Annual General Conference. The Attorney-General also called for an investigation into the expenditure of part of the Owerri Branch’s allocation and directed that the balance be disbursed to conferees.
Agu, however, said he read the Attorney-General’s letter with “a mixture of amusement and disappointment,” maintaining that rather than settling the controversy, the intervention raised additional questions.
He described the letter as appearing, in his assessment, less like an impartial attempt to restore confidence and more like “a desperate effort at damage control,” while stressing that some of the allegations now circulating around the controversy also concerned the Attorney-General himself.
Agu traced the immediate dispute to the NBA Owerri Branch meeting of September 26, where a motion was moved seeking the removal of Branch Chairman Dr. Mazi Udegbulem over questions concerning the expenditure of the ₦100 million.
The controversy had centred on the purpose for which the money was released, its subsequent application to projects at the Bar Centre and whether the expenditure received the approval required by the Branch’s governing rules. Previous reports showed that NBA Owerri received ₦100 million out of a reported ₦350 million intervention to the six NBA branches in Imo State, while the other five branches were allocated ₦50 million each.
According to Agu, many members understood the Owerri allocation to have been intended principally to assist lawyers who attended the Annual General Conference.
He alleged that the receipt of the money was not openly announced on the Branch’s various communication platforms in the same manner as previous donations and claimed that, when members began questioning how the fund was being applied, WhatsApp platforms belonging to the Branch were locked for more than a week after the conference.
He further alleged that some members who persisted in asking questions were removed from the platforms.
Agu argued that questions about institutional funds should not be interpreted as rebellion against leadership.
“A leader who receives public or institutional funds and is asked questions about the application of those funds ought not to see inquiries as rebellion,” he said.
He recalled that the Branch Chairman reported expenditure on projects including additional solar installation and an upgrade from 12KVA to 26KVA, air-conditioning units, additional chairs for the Bar Centre and NHIS subscriptions, among other items.
Agu said concerned members questioned whether expenditure reportedly exceeding ₦80 million could properly have been made without first securing the approval of the General Meeting.
He said Udegbulem’s explanation was that the money had been released pursuant to requests earlier made to Governor Hope Uzodimma for various Branch projects.
According to Agu, Udegbulem also relied on an acknowledgement letter dated August 31 in which he thanked the Governor for the ₦100 million donation to facilitate participation in the Annual General Conference while also indicating that the Branch still expected assistance for other projects, including solar installation.
Agu said some members interpreted that letter differently, arguing that it supported their contention that the ₦100 million was connected with conference assistance rather than constituting unrestricted funding for projects.
The dispute eventually led to a removal motion. TheNigeriaLawyer previously reported that five financial members later submitted a written motion seeking Udegbulem’s removal and alleging, among other things, improper expenditure and breaches of the Branch’s financial procedures. Those allegations have not been judicially or independently established.
Agu also recalled the heated September 26 meeting, alleging that Ikechukwu Godwin Umah, who seconded the removal motion, was ordered to leave after taking the microphone without the Chairman’s permission.
He said a substantial number of members, including senior lawyers, subsequently walked out in protest.
Agu himself later acknowledged that the initial removal procedure had not complied with the NBA Uniform Bye-Law and argued that the process had to begin afresh through a written motion signed by the required number of financial members and served within the prescribed periods.
Turning directly to Obinatu’s intervention, Agu summarised the Attorney-General’s position as being that the Governor’s financial support to the six branches was not exclusively for conference sponsorship; that branches were permitted to apply portions to legitimate projects; that executives, following appropriate consultation, could determine their priorities; that spending the entire sum on the conference would amount to waste; and that it would equally be inappropriate to spend everything on projects while failing to support conferees.
Obinatu had also asked the Owerri Branch Executive to implement the September 26 General Meeting resolution by establishing a committee to investigate project expenditure, release the outstanding balance to conference delegates, and bring the dispute to an end.
Agu challenged that intervention on several grounds.
First, he claimed that at the Port Harcourt dinner where the money was announced, the Attorney-General had presented the financial intervention as assistance from Governor Uzodimma intended to cushion the expenses of lawyers attending the AGC.
He therefore argued that the subsequent assertion that the funding was not exclusively linked to conference attendance was inconsistent with the way the intervention was initially presented.
More fundamentally, Agu questioned what he regarded as the directive tone of the Attorney-General’s letter.
He argued that the NBA is an independent professional body governed by its Constitution, Uniform Bye-Laws and internal democratic procedures and is neither a department of the Imo State Ministry of Justice nor an agency of the state government.
“The Attorney-General may express an opinion. He may offer counsel as the leader of the Bar. He may appeal for peace. But there is a fundamental difference between advice and command,” Agu wrote.
He particularly questioned the directive for the constitution of an investigative committee.
Agu maintained that a person whose conduct was at the centre of the controversy should not be in a position to determine the composition or direction of a process examining that same conduct.
“A man cannot sit in judgment over the fire he is accused of starting,” he said.
NBA Owerri subsequently announced a five-member investigative committee, saying the Branch Executive Committee approved it pursuant to the September 26 General Meeting resolution and following the Attorney-General’s communication. The committee was initially announced with Chief Soronnadi Njoku, SAN, as chairman.
Agu characterised the arrangement differently, saying it was comparable to allowing somebody accused of mishandling funds to appoint the auditor charged with investigating the allegation.
He had separately objected to the constitution of the committee, invoking the natural justice principle of nemo judex in causa sua — that no person should be a judge in his own cause.
Agu also questioned Obinatu’s directive that the remaining balance of the ₦100 million be distributed among conference delegates.
According to him, the critical question was how the “balance” could reliably be determined before a comprehensive account of the expenditure had been rendered.
“A balance can only be determined after a proper account has been rendered,” he wrote.
He argued that where the application of a fund itself was under scrutiny, financial disclosure should precede further disbursement.
“How can a Chairman whose expenditure of a particular fund is being questioned release the remainder of that same fund?” he asked.
Agu further questioned why any remaining money should be disbursed before the proposed investigation had been concluded.
“The cure for financial controversy is disclosure, not hurried disbursement,” he said.
The former Branch Secretary described as particularly troubling the Attorney-General’s suggestion that the Executive Committee had been pardoned at the September 26 meeting and that members should put the dispute behind them.
Agu argued that the matter was not simply a personal disagreement that could be resolved through forgiveness.
“The problem before NBA Owerri is not a quarrel between friends. It is not a family disagreement that can be settled with a handshake and an appeal for peace. It is an accountability question,” he wrote.
According to him, forgiveness should not become a substitute for institutional accountability.
“The language of forgiveness cannot be used as a substitute for accountability. Forgiveness is a virtue. It is a moral obligation in many circumstances. But in public institutions, forgiveness without accountability is merely a convenient escape route.”
Agu argued that where serious questions arise around the exercise of institutional authority, leaders should be prepared to submit to scrutiny and accept consequences where required.
He said resignation in the face of serious allegations should not necessarily be viewed as an admission of guilt, arguing that in some circumstances it could reflect recognition that the credibility of an office is greater than the personal interest of its occupant.
He maintained that the Nigerian Bar Association had a particular obligation to uphold the standards of transparency and accountability it routinely demands of governments and public institutions.
“Lawyers stand in court every day arguing that power must be controlled by law and that accountability must accompany authority,” Agu said.
He added that the public would legitimately ask the NBA whether it applied the same standards internally when questions were directed at its own leadership.
“The Bar must be willing to look at itself,” he said.
Agu then raised separate and substantially more serious allegations concerning the handling of the wider state government intervention.
He expressly acknowledged that the claims required investigation and verification.
According to him, allegations had circulated that the Attorney-General and the Secretary of the Imo State Judicial Service Commission sought portions of the funds released to NBA branches and that the NBA Owerri Chairman was expected to assist in collecting the alleged amounts from other branches.
Agu alleged that there was an understanding for ₦2 million each from five branches, amounting to ₦10 million, while he claimed that the Owerri Branch allocation was allegedly connected to a larger ₦20 million deduction.
These allegations remain unverified, and Agu himself presented them as matters requiring investigation. No evidence independently establishing that the Attorney-General or the Judicial Service Commission Secretary received or requested such sums was contained in the material accompanying his statement, and no response from the persons accused to these particular claims was included.
Agu said that if the allegations were established, they would raise further questions about the Attorney-General’s call for forgiveness.
He also brought NBA Mbaise Branch into the comparison.
Agu alleged that Mbaise resisted pressure relating to unauthorised deductions from its own allocation and claimed there had been an unsuccessful effort involving the Branch Secretary, Mrs. S.C. Nwachi, to secure compliance. Those claims were also presented by Agu as allegations and have not been independently established.
What is independently confirmed is that NBA Mbaise received ₦50 million from the Imo State Government, with the Branch stating that it submitted its account details on August 26 and received the money on September 1.
Agu said Mbaise’s subsequent handling of the ₦50 million offered an example of the institutional process he believed Owerri should have followed.
According to his statement, the Mbaise Branch Advisory Council met on September 18 and agreed on a detailed allocation of the entire ₦50 million.
He listed ₦100,000 for AGC delegates’ registration; ₦8.68 million in support for 14 registered delegates; ₦1.2 million for six non-registered members who attended the conference; ₦9 million for landscaping the Bar Centre; ₦4 million for the 2027 Law Week; ₦4 million for 2027 Bar Practising Fees; ₦20 million for bus procurement or identified court-related renovation projects; ₦700,000 for furniture at the Aboh Mbaise High Court; ₦750,000 for the 2026 December Dinner; and ₦1.57 million for labour.
The allocations listed by Agu total the Branch’s ₦50 million fund. The published version of his statement also records the Mbaise Advisory Council decision and the principal allocations.
“This, to my mind, represents what institutional leadership should look like,” Agu said.
“The Advisory Council was consulted. Decisions were documented. The proposed application of funds was clearly stated.”
He contrasted that process with his assessment of the situation in Owerri, accusing the Branch leadership of consulting its Advisory Council selectively.
Agu then disclosed that he had already taken steps to obtain the Owerri Branch’s financial records.
He said that pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law of Imo State, he had written to the Branch Chairman, with copies to the Secretary, Financial Secretary and Treasurer, requesting statements for the Branch’s accounts and documents relating to the receipt and expenditure of the government funds.
His earlier requests included bank statements, receipts, invoices, payment vouchers and supporting documentation connected with expenditure at the Bar Centre.
Agu maintained that transparency should not be treated as hostility towards the Branch.
“Transparency is not an attack. A person who asks to see records is not an enemy of the institution. A lawyer asking for financial documents should never be treated as a troublemaker,” he said.
He argued that the legal profession teaches that evidence matters, allegations must be tested and truth should survive scrutiny, principles which he said lawyers could not abandon simply because questions were now directed inward.
Agu then announced his intention to escalate the financial questions beyond the internal structures of the Branch.
“Beyond this, I shall, together with other concerned members of the Bar, invite the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission within the week to investigate the movement of the funds received by NBA Owerri Branch within the months of August and September 2026,” he wrote.
He said the controversy had grown beyond the fate of one individual or the expenditure of one ₦100 million allocation.
“The issue before us is not about one man. It is not about one Chairman. It is not even about one ₦100 million. It is about whether the Nigerian Bar Association will practise the same accountability it demands from others.”
According to Agu, an organisation that challenges governments and demands transparency from public institutions should not resist similar scrutiny of its own affairs.
“The Bar cannot be the doctor who prescribes medicine for others but refuses to take the same medicine when sick,” he said.
He urged the Attorney-General and the Branch leadership to allow the controversy to be resolved through disclosure and due process rather than attempts to suppress disagreement or prematurely declare the dispute settled.
“The Attorney-General should understand that peace without justice is not peace. It is merely silence waiting to be broken again,” Agu wrote.
“The solution to this crisis is not to suppress questions. The solution is not to preach forgiveness before accountability. The solution is simple: Open the books. Answer the questions. Allow due process. Let the truth speak.”
He concluded with the Igbo proverb: “Eziokwu dị ka mmanụ nkwụ; a naghị ezo ya n’ọkụ,” which he translated as, “Truth is like palm oil; it cannot be hidden in the fire.”
“The Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri Branch, must decide whether it wants to be remembered as an institution that protected accountability or one that protected those who feared it,” Agu said.
“History has a long memory.”
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “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
