The Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) and NBA presidential candidate Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, SAN, have exchanged a fresh round of correspondence that has further deepened the crisis of confidence surrounding the NBA’s July 20, 2026, election, with the ECNBA telling Akangbe in a one-page letter that its June 12 press statement has “comprehensively addressed” his concerns without providing specific answers to any of his detailed questions, and Akangbe responding in a separate detailed letter that the press statement, on closer examination, “confirmed rather than dispelled” his earlier worries about the appointment of Mikrodigital Connect and Thanelinc Nigeria Limited as election service providers and the abandonment of NIN-based voter authentication.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
Both letters are dated June 15, 2026, creating a situation where the ECNBA declared the matter comprehensively addressed on the same day Akangbe demonstrated in forensic detail that it was anything but.
The exchange has drawn widespread criticism from lawyers on social media who have accused the committee of evasiveness, with many describing the ECNBA’s approach as “playing hide and seek again” and warning the committee not to drag its name and credibility further into disrepute.
The ECNBA’s letter, jointly signed by Chairman Aham Ejelam, SAN, and Secretary Ibrahim Aliyu Nassarawa, Esq., was addressed to Akangbe at his chambers in St Nicholas House, Lagos, and was notable more for what it did not say than for what it did.
The committee stated: “The Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA) believes that it has, in its Press Statement dated 12th June 2026, comprehensively addressed the issues raised in your letter dated 8th June 2026.”
It acknowledged Akangbe’s right to respond but pivoted to a general observation about the multiplicity of stakeholders: “We would, however, want to remind all of us that the electoral process involves the recognition of the suggestions and opinions of a great many other candidates vying for different positions, as well as members of the NBA who are eligible to vote, those who will choose not to, and all other stakeholders in the process.”
The committee added a qualified assurance: “All matters genuinely raised will continue to receive due consideration and be addressed appropriately, so long as the intentions are to assist the Committee in conducting free, fair, and credible elections without compromising the rights of all eligible voters to participate within the provisions of the NBA Constitution.”
On the specific questions Akangbe had posed, the ECNBA offered only a general promise of future engagement: “Within the constitutionally prescribed timeframe available to the Committee, further clarification on any outstanding issues will be provided through subsequent meetings, press statements, or other appropriate channels.”
The response did not disclose the bid documents, the evaluation criteria, the track records of the service providers, Thanelinc’s data protection credentials, the indemnity and insurance arrangements, or whether NIN authentication would be restored. It answered none of the six specific questions Akangbe had raised in his June 8 letter.
In a separate and far more detailed letter of the same date, Akangbe addressed the ECNBA’s June 12 press statement point by point, commending the committee for responding but stating that the press statement, on closer examination, “confirmed rather than dispelled several of his earlier worries,” with some portions introducing fresh issues and others revealing weaknesses in the committee’s explanations.
Akangbe dismantled the ECNBA’s claim that presidential candidates did not object during the public comment period, which ran from May 11 to May 16, 2026. He explained that the comment period related only to six shortlisted entities, not to the final appointment of the two service providers. The assessment session where shortlisted entities made live presentations was held on May 25, nine days after the comment window closed.
“A candidate cannot object to an appointment that has not yet been made,” Akangbe stated.
Akangbe rejected the ECNBA’s suggestion that the candidates’ IT consultants endorsed the final selection. He stated that his consultant attended as an observer with “no vote, no scoring sheet and no decision-making authority.”
“Attending a hearing is not the same as delivering the judgment. Defence counsel does not become complicit in a conviction by reason of having been present at the trial,” Akangbe stated, challenging the committee to produce any evaluation scoring matrix signed by the candidates’ consultants.
On the ECNBA’s defence that Mikrodigital Connect’s sole proprietorship status offered stronger protection through unlimited personal liability, Akangbe responded: “A personal judgment against an individual of undisclosed means is not robust protection for the NBA in the event of a data breach, catastrophic failure or disputed election requiring indemnification.”
He noted that no capitalisation floor, professional indemnity insurance, performance bond, or guarantee had been disclosed.
“Unlimited liability is a legal concept. It is not, by itself, money,” Akangbe stated.
He added that while the Request for Proposal may not have required limited liability incorporation, “that omission is itself a criticism of the procurement document.” For a national election involving over 80,000 legal practitioners, the entity entrusted with the integrity of the ballot should meet more rigorous institutional requirements.
On Mikrodigital’s annual returns, Akangbe stated that the concern was not merely whether the CAC could strike off the entity, but what six consecutive years of statutory default revealed about institutional discipline. The entity, registered in November 2019, allegedly did not file annual returns until the evening of May 31, 2026, a development that could suggest “ignorance of statutory obligations, disregard for compliance, or dormancy until the election engagement emerged.”
Akangbe raised a new concern: whether the technical personnel who impressed the committee at the May 25 assessment session were employees, contractors, freelancers, or associates of the proprietor. The service agreement was with Mikrodigital Connect as a business name, and the NBA had not been given assurance that the same team would be contractually bound to deliver the election on July 20.
On Thanelinc, Akangbe said the ECNBA’s statement did not clearly confirm the company’s registration with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission. He noted the committee’s use of “carefully hedged” phrases such as “where applicable” and “NDPC registration or DPCO status.”
“If Thanelinc has a current NDPC registration certificate, the committee should simply publish the registration number,” Akangbe stated.
He also faulted the ECNBA’s reliance on Thanelinc’s presentation as evidence of track record: “A presentation is not the same as a track record. A track record consists of prior engagements of comparable scope, successfully completed and verifiable by reference to the bodies that engaged the entity.”
On NIN authentication, Akangbe said the committee failed to communicate the outcome of its assessment after the May 25 meeting. The voters’ register was frozen on May 27, and the Step-by-Step Electronic Voting Guide was published without any mention of NIN. “Candidates only discovered that the NIN layer had been abandoned when they read the published guide.”
He acknowledged that some practical objections to NIN, including concerns about married women whose records had not been updated and diaspora members, were valid, but said those concerns should have been raised promptly rather than “appearing for the first time in a reactive press statement weeks later.”
Akangbe warned that the existing SCN-plus-OTP framework remained vulnerable. The Supreme Court Number is not secret: “It appears on call-to-bar records, practice documents, stamps and seals, email signatures and court filings.” Where the OTP delivery channel is compromised through SIM swap fraud, social engineering, or email compromise, “the two-factor framework may in practice become a single-factor system.”
He also raised the risk of internal sabotage, since the NBA itself is the custodian of the SCN database, and advised that the ECNBA should access the voters’ database from Access Bank rather than from the NBA “as a safeguard against possible internal or external compromise.”
Akangbe addressed the ECNBA’s accusation that private correspondence was handed to “sponsored bloggers” with an emphatic denial.
“I deny this allegation. I deny it categorically, unreservedly, and on the record,” Akangbe stated.
He explained that pursuant to a May 25 meeting resolution, candidates agreed to copy other presidential candidates on communications to the ECNBA. He delivered a hard copy to the committee and sent a soft copy to the other two candidates. “I cannot vouch for what any person copied in the email did with it.”
He challenged the committee to produce evidence if it believed he paid, instructed, or sponsored anyone to publish any content connected with the correspondence.
Akangbe criticised what he described as veiled threats of professional disciplinary action against candidates who raise concerns, stating that every material factual statement in his original letter was sourced from the CAC public register and largely acknowledged in the committee’s own response.
“An electoral committee threatening candidates with disciplinary proceedings for scrutinising its procurement decisions will not inspire confidence,” Akangbe warned.
He then delivered the line that has resonated most widely across legal social media: “If the Committee’s processes are sound, they will withstand scrutiny and emerge stronger for it. If they cannot withstand scrutiny, the answer is to strengthen the processes, not to silence the scrutiny.”
Akangbe rejected the ECNBA’s declaration that its decision was final, stating that finality “is determined by the NBA Constitution and ultimately by the courts of Nigeria.”
“No body can immunise its decisions from constitutional review or judicial scrutiny simply by declaring them final in a press statement,” Akangbe stated, a warning that signals the possibility of post-election litigation if the concerns remain unaddressed.
Akangbe faulted the ECNBA’s description of those who proposed NIN authentication as “the two male presidential candidates,” stating that “the gender of the candidates who proposed an election security measure is irrelevant to the merit of the proposal” and describing the characterisation as “unnecessary and capable of suggesting a gendered motive to what is a gender-neutral governance concern.”
The ECNBA’s one-page response drew immediate and widespread criticism from lawyers on social media.
“This is ECNBA playing hide and seek again,” one lawyer commented, reflecting a sentiment that has become increasingly prevalent as the election approaches.
“Akangbe SAN wrote six pages of detailed, evidence-backed questions. The ECNBA responded with one page that essentially says ‘we already answered you.’ Where? How? On what specific point?” another lawyer asked.
Several lawyers warned the ECNBA against further damaging its credibility: “Do not drag your name in a bad way. Answer the questions. The membership deserves to know who is handling their election data and whether the authentication system is secure.”
The ECNBA’s qualified assurance that concerns would be addressed “so long as the intentions are to assist the Committee” also drew pointed criticism. “Who decides whether the intentions are to assist the committee? The committee itself? That is not transparency, that is gatekeeping,” one lawyer observed.
Akangbe concluded by stating that because the ECNBA circulated its June 12 press statement to every member of the NBA and allegedly impugned the integrity of two presidential candidates by implication, he would circulate his response with equal prominence.
“What is good for the Committee’s narrative is good for the candidate’s reply,” Akangbe stated.
His letter was copied to members of the ECNBA, the NBA President, and the NBA General Secretary.
The exchange now comprises four rounds of public correspondence: Akangbe’s original June 8 letter; the ECNBA’s June 12 press statement; Akangbe’s June 15 substantive response to the press statement; and the ECNBA’s June 15 one-page letter declaring the matter “comprehensively addressed.” A separate letter from Akinboro SAN dated June 10, demanding the immediate disengagement of both service providers, adds a fifth document to the controversy.
The NBA election is scheduled for July 20, 2026, approximately 35 days away. The ECNBA has promised “further clarification” without specifying when or through what channel. The committee has answered none of Akangbe’s specific questions on the record. Two of the three presidential candidates have formally challenged the committee’s procurement decisions and authentication framework. And the trust deficit between the ECNBA and a substantial portion of the NBA membership continues to widen with each exchange that produces general assurances instead of specific answers.
Akangbe’s warning from his original June 8 letter remains operative: the matters he has raised “will be among the very first matters scrutinised in the event of any post-election dispute.” The documentary trail being created through this correspondence chain will speak for itself in any future litigation, and the ECNBA’s repeated reliance on general assurances rather than specific responses may prove more consequential in a courtroom than the committee appears to appreciate.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Your Copy Now” — Basil Momodu, Esq. Unveils Second Edition Of His Book, "Civil Procedure In Nigeria"
According to the learned author, Basil Momodu Esq. "Law review is a continuum. We will continue to track changes in the law to enrich future editions." Recommended Booksellers: Lagos: 08033855230, Abuja: 08035991379, and others.
