Senior Advocate of Nigeria Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Lagos Branch, has issued a comprehensive critique of the Legal Practitioners Bill 2025, warning that in its current form the proposed legislation risks imposing disproportionate burdens on young and newly called lawyers, creating structural barriers to entry, deepening economic vulnerability, and introducing regulatory uncertainty at the very point where aspiring lawyers begin their professional careers.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
In a detailed written analysis, Akangbe, who previously served as secretary of one of the Body of Benchers committees that reviewed a draft of the Bill, stated that while reform of Nigeria’s legal profession is necessary and overdue, the current draft concentrates regulatory weight on those with the least bargaining power and must undergo “fundamental reconsideration” if the Bar’s future is not to be weakened in the name of modernisation.
“Reform is necessary. Standards must improve, accountability must be strengthened, and professional development must be structured. But reform must expand opportunity, not constrict it,” Akangbe stated.
“Young lawyers are not experimental subjects for untested regulatory models. They are the future custodians of the rule of law,” the senior advocate declared.
Akangbe identified the introduction of a compulsory two-year post-call pupillage as the most consequential provision affecting fresh lawyers, and the one most in need of reconsideration.
He was careful to affirm the value of the objective. “No one disputes the value of mentorship or structured practical training,” he stated. “The problem lies not in the objective but in the design.”
His central critique is that the Nigerian legal market does not presently possess the institutional capacity to absorb thousands of newly called lawyers annually into structured, properly supervised placements. Yet the Bill imposes a blanket restriction preventing them from practising independently until pupillage is completed.
“It creates an obligation without guaranteeing opportunity,” Akangbe stated. “The inevitable question arises: what becomes of a qualified lawyer who cannot secure placement? The Bill provides no answer.”
He described the resulting situation as incoherent: “A regime that produces qualified practitioners who are legally barred from practice because the system cannot accommodate them is neither coherent nor fair.”
The observation identifies a fundamental design flaw. If the Law School produces several thousand graduates annually, and the legal market cannot provide a corresponding number of supervised pupillage positions, the Bill would create a bottleneck where qualified lawyers are legally prohibited from working in the profession they trained for, through no fault of their own.
Akangbe warned that the Bill’s economic implications for young lawyers are equally troubling.
The proposed legislation does not entrench minimum remuneration within the statute itself. Instead, it leaves critical safeguards, including supervision standards, allowances, and complaint mechanisms, to future regulations that may or may not be enacted, and that young lawyers would have no power to influence.
“This legislative silence exposes young lawyers to the risk of prolonged low pay or unpaid service,” Akangbe stated.
He contextualised the concern within the reality facing most Nigerian law graduates. “Many fresh lawyers already face financial strain upon graduation. Some support families, others bear educational debt. Extending economic precarity for two additional years without statutory protections will disproportionately affect those from modest backgrounds and may deter talented entrants from the profession altogether.”
The class dimension of Akangbe’s critique is significant. A two-year unpaid or underpaid pupillage may be manageable for graduates from wealthy families who can afford to subsidise the early years of their children’s careers. For graduates from modest backgrounds, who may have financed their education through loans or family sacrifice, two additional years without guaranteed income could make legal practice economically unviable.
“If pupillage is to be introduced, it must be accompanied by clear allocation mechanisms, enforceable minimum standards, and sustainable funding models,” Akangbe insisted. “Otherwise, it amounts to regulatory overreach imposed on the most vulnerable members of the Bar.”
Akangbe raised a structural governance concern about the Bill’s proposal to vest annual practising licence issuance in the Nigerian Bar Association.
“The NBA is a representative and advocacy body, not a neutral regulator,” he stated. “Sound professional governance requires a clear separation between representation and regulation. Conflating the two risks institutional conflict and erodes confidence in the licensing process.”
The concern is institutional rather than personal. Regardless of who leads the NBA at any given time, placing the power to grant or withhold practising licences in the hands of a representative body creates a structural conflict of interest. The body that advocates for lawyers’ interests and engages in internal politics would simultaneously hold the power to determine which lawyers can practise, a combination that invites the perception of bias even if none exists.
For young lawyers specifically, Akangbe noted that the stakes are particularly high. The Bill requires applicants to satisfy the NBA of “good character” each year but provides no objective definition of good character, no standardised assessment framework, and no clear appeal mechanism against refusal.
“A licensing regime dependent on undefined character standards introduces uncertainty and invites the perception of arbitrariness,” Akangbe warned. “Even the appearance of discretionary or politicised decision-making can undermine professional independence. A young practitioner’s livelihood should not rest on vague standards lacking transparent safeguards.”
The critique echoes broader concerns about the NBA’s governance that have been highlighted by the ongoing ECNBA controversy, the Okutepa-Osigwe dispute, and the allegations of political manipulation of the Association’s electoral process. If the NBA cannot resolve its own internal governance challenges without generating months of litigation and public feuding, questions about its suitability to serve as the licensing authority for the entire profession are legitimate.
Akangbe supported the concept of Continuing Professional Development but criticised the Bill’s failure to define what CPD means in practice.
The Bill mandates CPD as a condition for licence renewal but fails to specify minimum hours, qualifying activities, hardship exemptions, or quality controls.
“Professional development is indispensable; ambiguity is not,” Akangbe stated. “Without clarity and accessible delivery mechanisms, CPD risks becoming an additional financial burden and barrier rather than a genuine tool for competence enhancement.”
He raised particular concern for young lawyers practising in small firms or rural environments, who may struggle to comply if costs and logistics are not carefully calibrated. A lawyer practising in a rural local government area, far from the urban centres where CPD programmes are typically offered, could face travel and accommodation costs that exceed the value of the training, effectively penalising geographic diversity in legal practice.
Akangbe acknowledged the commendable intention behind the Bill’s provision empowering a Remuneration Committee to recommend minimum remuneration for young lawyers, but warned of unintended consequences.
“Rigid or poorly calibrated salary thresholds may yield unintended consequences,” he stated. “Small and medium-sized firms, which traditionally absorb the majority of fresh lawyers, may reduce hiring if mandated remuneration exceeds economic capacity.”
The observation identifies a tension between protecting young lawyers from exploitation and ensuring that employment opportunities remain available. If minimum salary requirements are set above what smaller firms can afford, the result could be fewer jobs rather than better-paid ones, with the most vulnerable lawyers bearing the consequences.
“Protective regulation must be designed with market realities in mind; otherwise, it may shrink the very opportunities it seeks to safeguard,” Akangbe stated.
Akangbe flagged the absence of explicit transitional provisions as a serious deficiency.
The Bill does not clearly address its application to current law students or recent graduates. Students who enrolled in law programmes under existing rules, with reasonable expectations about the pathway to qualification, could find themselves subject to entirely new requirements without warning or preparation.
“Professional qualification frameworks must be predictable,” Akangbe stated. “Abrupt structural changes without defined transitional pathways undermine legitimate expectations and create instability at a formative stage of professional development.”
Despite his criticisms, Akangbe did not call for the Bill to be abandoned but rather for substantial amendment.
“The Bill is not beyond redemption. With substantial amendment, it can serve as a vehicle for meaningful modernisation,” he stated.
He outlined the amendments he considers essential. Pupillage must be supported by enforceable protections and demonstrable capacity. Licensing should be vested in an independent regulatory authority with clear, objective standards rather than in the NBA. CPD obligations must be defined, accessible, and affordable. Transitional arrangements must be explicit and fair.
“Reform must be principled, evidence-based and sensitive to socioeconomic realities,” Akangbe stated. “The strength of the legal profession depends not only on seniority and tradition but on the stability and confidence of its newest members.”
Akangbe concluded with a direct appeal to the legislators considering the Bill.
“In seeking to improve regulation, we must not erect barriers that narrow access, prolong vulnerability or compromise independence. True reform does not burden the future; it equips it,” the senior advocate stated.
“The National Assembly must ensure that in modernising professional governance, it does not inadvertently sacrifice the very generation upon which the future of the Bar depends.”
Akangbe’s critique carries particular weight for several reasons. As a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, he speaks with the authority of the profession’s highest rank. As former Chairman of the NBA Lagos Branch, the Association’s largest and most influential branch, he has firsthand experience of the NBA’s governance challenges that inform his objection to the Association controlling licensing. As former Chairman of the NBA Finance Committee, he understands the economic realities of legal practice. And as a former secretary of the Body of Benchers committee that reviewed the Bill, he has institutional knowledge of the drafting process and the compromises that shaped the current text.
His willingness to publicly critique the Bill, despite his involvement in its review process, suggests that concerns he raised during the committee stage were not adequately addressed, prompting him to take the debate to the public sphere.
For the thousands of law students currently in university, the graduates preparing for Bar Finals, and the young lawyers already struggling with the economic realities of early practice, Akangbe’s intervention is a rare instance of a senior member of the profession using his platform to advocate for the interests of those who lack the institutional power to advocate for themselves.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
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
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.
