The article is authored by Akorede Onabokun and Angel Ifeanyi
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
INTRODUCTION
On 25 November 2025, several media organisations, including Vanguard, reported that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu transmitted a proposed Bill to the Nigerian Senate seeking to repeal and re-enact the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, which was originally enacted in 1962.
The proposed legislation, titled the Legal Practitioners Bill 2025, is aimed at introducing wide ranging reforms to regulate professional conduct and strengthen accountability within the legal profession. The Bill passed its first reading in the Senate on 25 November 2025 and proceeded to the second reading on 3 December 2025. Following this, the Senate referred the Bill to the Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, which subsequently organised a public hearing held on 18 December 2025.
It is important to note that this is not the first attempt at reforming the Legal Practitioners Act. In 2021, a similar bill: the Legal Practitioners Bill 2021 was sponsored by Senator Opeyemi Bamidele of Ekiti State. Although that Bill contained provisions different from those in the 2025 Bill, it passed the second reading in the Senate on 6 October 2021 before being scheduled for a public hearing.
The proposed Legal Practitioners Bill seeks to strengthen professional discipline by improving mechanisms for dealing with misconduct, while also introducing clearer licensing requirements to standardise who is authorised to practise law in Nigeria and curb unqualified practice. Together with its broader effort to modernise legal regulation, these reforms aim to raise professional standards and enhance public confidence in the legal profession.
One provision of the current Bill has, however, generated significant debate within the legal community, particularly among practising lawyers, law students, and recent law graduates. The inclusion of a 2 year Post-Professional Legal Internship (PPLI). Section 25 of the Bill proposes a mandatory two year pupilage for newly called lawyers before they are allowed to practise independently or establish a law firm.
Section 25(1) of the Bill provides that:
- A person-
(a) called to the Nigerian Bar shall undergo a mandatory pupilage for two years except in circumstances which may be permitted by the Body of Benchers in consultation with the Association; and
(b) who has not undertaken the mandatory two years’ pupilage shall not commence practice as sole practitioner or set up a law firm either alone, in partnership or other arrangement with any other legal practitioners.
The intention behind this provision appears to be to improve the standard of legal practice in Nigeria and reduce instances of poor legal representation. While this proposal may have been introduced in good faith, it raises serious concerns when viewed against the current practical and economic realities facing young lawyers in Nigeria and the legal profession as a whole.
Accordingly, this article considers the reasoning that informs the proposed bill and critically examines the practical and structural challenges likely to arise from its implementation in Nigeria.
REASONING BEHIND THE BILL
The proposal for a mandatory two-year pupilage requirement before newly called lawyers may engage in independent legal practice is, at a conceptual level, grounded in a legitimate concern for professional competence and ethical formation, especially in a jurisdiction where access to justice is closely tied to the quality of legal representation, the need to strengthen post-qualification training cannot be dismissed as misguided. However, regulatory reform does not succeed by good intentions alone. The potency of the bill ultimately rests on whether it can be implemented coherently within the social, economic, and institutional conditions of the profession it seeks to regulate. It is at this point that the proposed pupilage regime poses serious difficulties and uncertainties in the Nigerian context.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
One of the central arguments advanced in support of the proposed Legal Practitioners Bill is that it seeks to model the practice of law in Nigeria after jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Canada, while also improving client representation by ensuring that newly called lawyers possess adequate practical experience before handling cases independently. While this objective is laudable in principle, Section 25 of the proposed Bill introducing a mandatory two-year pupillage raises serious concerns of fairness, proportionality, and practicality for intending legal practitioners in Nigeria.
Under the proposed framework, the total duration required to qualify as a practicing lawyer in Nigeria would rise to approximately nine years: five years for a law degree, one year at the Nigerian Law School, one year of National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), and an additional two years of mandatory pupillage. This is without accounting for existing systemic delays. In reality, a law degree in Nigeria often takes seven to eight years due to frequent industrial actions such as ASUU strikes , while admission into the Nigerian Law School is commonly delayed by one to two years because of admission backlogs. As a result, an intending lawyer could spend 10–11 years before being called to the Bar, and up to 13 years before being allowed to practice independently under the proposed pupillage regime. There is arguably no comparable legal qualification structure anywhere in the world that requires such an extended timeline.
A comparative analysis further exposes the misalignment of Section 25 with the very jurisdictions it claims to emulate. In the United Kingdom, pupillage is not mandatory for all lawyers; it applies only to those seeking to practice as barristers and lasts one year. The typical pathway involves a three-year law degree, a one-year Bar Training Course, and a one-year pupillage, bringing the total qualification period to five years. Importantly, barristers-in-training are permitted to take on cases and earn fees after the first six months of pupillage. For solicitors in the UK, the pathway is similarly streamlined ,a three-year law degree followed by the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE 1 and 2), alongside two years of Qualifying Work Experience undertaken concurrently with the examinations. This also results in a total qualification period of about five years.
The Canadian system follows a comparable approach. After completing a three-year law degree, intending lawyers sit for bar admission examinations lasting approximately six months, followed by a one-year Law Practice Program or articling. This means that lawyers in Canada are typically called to the Bar in less than five years after completing their undergraduate legal education.
Against this backdrop, it is clear that a mandatory two-year pupillage for all Nigerian lawyers is inconsistent with global best practices, including those of the UK and Canada. Rather than improving the profession, the provision risks imposing unnecessary hardship on young lawyers who have already undergone extensive academic and vocational training, including court and chambers externships during Law School. Preventing newly called lawyers from taking briefs or earning fees for two additional years particularly in the context of Nigeria’s current economic challenges may encourage labour exploitation, discourage entry into the profession, and ultimately reduce interest in the study of law nationwide. Notably, there appears to be no publicly articulated policy rationale or impact assessment justifying the introduction of this provision. In its current form, Section 25 is more likely to set the legal profession back than to advance it.
STRUCTURAL INADEQUACIES OF LAW FIRMS UNDER A 2-YEAR MANDATORY PUPILAGE REGIME
Nigeria’s legal labour market is already characterised by a structural imbalance between supply and absorption. According to Rentech Smartcraper, as of October 2025 it is estimated the number of law firms in the country is roughly at 2894, with a significant concentration in Lagos State, this is no way 100% reliable as there are firms without online presence. According to the Nigerian Bar Association, there are currently over 140,000 lawyers across the country. Against this, the Nigerian Law School calls between 6,000 and 7,000 new lawyers to the Bar annually. This numerical imbalance has concrete consequences for employment, training, and career progression within the profession. The existing tiered structure of law firms further complicates the picture. Tier 1 firms, which are often cited as the gold standard for training and remuneration, recruits very few lawyers annually. Tier 2 firms tend to recruit more while tier 3 firms operate on a much smaller margin and sometimes lack the resources to take on multiple trainees.
Taken together these firms are unlikely to absorb even half of the lawyers produced in a single year. The introduction of mandatory pupilage does not increase the number of available positions; it simply makes access to practice dependent on securing placement in a market that is demonstrably unable to provide at scale.
Over time, some newly qualified lawyers who are unable to secure positions in established firms often set up modest practices, sometimes as sole practitioners, sometimes informal partnerships. While this pathway might raise valid concerns about preparedness and supervision, it has also functioned as an informal but effective mechanism for dispersing professional congestion. By delaying or outright prohibiting independent practice until the completion of a mandatory pupilage period, the proposed bill dismantles this mechanism without replacing it with an alternative capable of absorbing displaced lawyers. The result is not improved training, but prolonged professional limbo for a significant segment of the Bar.
Another practical consequence of this proposed bill is its effect on in-house legal practice. Employment as in-house counsel has long served as an alternative for lawyers who do not prefer to work through the traditional law firm route. Corporate organizations, financial institutions, non-profit and regulatory bodies have over the years absorbed a significant amount of young lawyers, thereby easing pressure on the private firm job market. Now the mandatory pupilage requirement forecloses this option, because by restricting legal practice until the completion of the 2 years pupilage the bill renders newly called lawyers ineligible for in-house roles during that period, further narrowing the already limited post-qualification opportunities.
THE NYSC-PUPILAGE CONFLICT
The proposal also exposes tensions that could exist between pupilage and the National Youth Service Corps scheme. In practice, many law graduates undertake their NYSC immediately after Law School and are engaged by law firms during this period as trainee associates. But with this new development there is a certain confusion as to whether the service year will count towards the pupilage requirement or whether the two will operate concurrently because as of now the bill is silent in that regards, and this silence creates uncertainty about the legal status of newly called lawyers and the obligations of the firms that engage them.
RISK OF EXPLOTITATIVE PRACTICES
Another critical concern that the proposed regime raises is power imbalance and vulnerability. Where completion of a statutory requirement becomes a pathway to practice, newly qualified lawyers are placed at the complete mercy of firms willing to take them on, and many aspiring lawyers will struggle to secure pupilage positions. Such persons won’t be able to hold themselves out as lawyers, they would not be able to work as in-house lawyers or any law related work. So a qualification system that bars practice simply because of lack of unavailable placement should not be seen as an advancement.
Also in the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms the dependence of lawyers on firms would lead to exploitation, whether through inadequate remuneration or excessive working hours. Especially in a labor market where actual lawyers are not even paid properly. According to the NBA Remuneration Committee Report of 2022, 33% of lawyers earn below 70,000, only 18% earn above 150,000, while 23% have no fixed pay. Further analysis by the committee also revealed that N20,000 to N70,000 monthly remuneration were common among new lawyers 4 years post call.
In a system where lawyers are not properly remunerated how can law graduates in the pupilage system be guaranteed that they would be properly remunerated? Although per section 25 (3) (a), the Body of Benchers is expected to regulate remuneration, regulations without enforcement offers little protection in a labour market where exploitative practices are common.
FINANCIAL BURDEN ON LAW FIRMS
A further difficulty the bill will impose is the financial difficulty on firms because the financial implications for law firms themselves further complicate the bill’s viability. Many firms, particularly outside the top tier, operate with narrow margins and limited infrastructure. Imposing an obligation to accommodate and remunerate pupils for extended periods may discourage participation in the training scheme altogether. Firms that are unable or unwilling to bear the cost may simply opt out, thereby reducing rather than expanding the pool of available training opportunities. This outcome would directly undermine the bill’s stated objective of improving professional formation.
Another perplexing issue that arises from the mandatory 2 year pupilage is that the bill duplicates the vocational training provided by the legal education in Nigeria, where students at the Nigerian law school have a mandatory 3 months court attachment, and 3 months law office attachment which the bill has chosen to ignore and introduce another system that adds two more years that doesn’t solve any particular issue the current system has failed to solve.
RIPPLE EFFECTS ON LAW UNDERGRADUATES
The effects of the proposed pupilage regime are also likely to cause ripple effects beyond newly qualified lawyers. Law students, who already face difficulties securing internships during their undergraduate years may find such opportunities even scarcer as firms prioritise mandatory pupils over undergraduate trainees. This contraction of early exposure further weakens the professional pipeline and shifts the burden of practical training even later into a lawyer’s career.
What emerges from this analysis is not an argument against structured post-qualification training as such, but a warning about regulatory reform that proceeds without adequate engagement with institutional capacity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The introduction of a mandatory two-year pupillage is likely to create more problems than it solves, as it fails to address the structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s legal education and training system.
First, Nigeria should adopt a model similar to the United Kingdom by reducing the law degree program to three years, followed by one year at the Nigerian Law School. Pupillage should be limited to one year, applicable to newly called lawyers, and should run concurrently with the NYSC scheme. Lawyers serving as NYSC associates in law firms should be deemed to be fulfilling the pupillage requirement. This approach would reduce the total qualification period to five years, without sacrificing professional competence.
Secondly, newly called lawyers should be permitted, after six months of pupillage, to handle cases and charge professional fees under the supervision of qualified legal practitioners or law firms. This approach promotes practical competence, gradual independence, and financial sustainability for young law.
Furthermore, pupillage placements should not be restricted to law firms alone. Recognizing in-house legal departments in corporations, financial institutions, regulatory agencies, and other organizations as approved pupillage centers provided experienced legal practitioners are available for supervision would significantly expand training opportunities. This would also reduce the burden on law firms, many of which may lack the capacity to absorb large numbers of pupils, while better reflecting the realities of modern legal practice.
To address the inevitable problem of insufficient pupillage slots, the regulatory framework should also provide for a centralized pupillage placement and accreditation system managed by the relevant regulatory body. Approved supervisors and institutions both in private practice and in-house roles should be registered in advance, and newly called lawyers should be matched to available placements through a transparent process. Where placement is delayed through no fault of the new wig, alternative supervised legal work or structured practical training modules should be recognized as satisfying the pupillage requirement. This would prevent qualified lawyers from being unfairly locked out of the profession due to systemic capacity constraints.
CONCLUSION
The reasoning behind the mandatory pupilage bill reflects a genuine desire to strengthen the profession. Yet, without a realistic assessment of Nigeria’s legal labour market, clear integration with existing frameworks such as NYSC, enforceable safeguards against exploitation, and a sustainable model for firm participation, the proposed regime risks producing outcomes contrary to its aims. In a profession already grappling with unemployment, inequality, and uneven access to opportunity, implementation failure would not be a marginal flaw but a fundamental one.
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
______________________________________________________________________ "You Don't Need To Be Rich, You Just Need To Start" — Victoria Ezeigwe, Esq Launches Investment Handbook For Nigerians Starting With ₦5,000
Get your copy today and take the first step toward financial growth:
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
_______________________________________________________________________
