*Threatens Legal Action if Practising Certificate Rule Persists

The Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF), a coalition of Nigerian legal practitioners, has formally condemned the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) new directive under the MCPD Rules 2025, which makes the acquisition of a minimum of five CPD/CLE credit hours a mandatory condition for the issuance of the 2026 practising certificate, access to NBA stamps and seals, court appearances, and filing of legal documents.

In a strongly worded letter addressed to the NBA President, ABLIF described the policy as “ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory,” arguing that the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) 2004 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria exclusively empower the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to issue practising certificates and collect annual fees, not the NBA.

ABLIF National Convener, Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, alongside co-convener Chukwuemeka Clement and National Secretary Christabel Zoe Ayuk, emphasized that the policy infringes on lawyers’ rights to fair hearing and livelihood, violates constitutional provisions, and imposes economic and logistical hardships, particularly on junior and rural lawyers. They highlighted that CPD programme costs range from ₦30,000 to over ₦1.5 million, with limited accessibility due to poor connectivity and inadequate infrastructure.

The coalition demanded:

  1. Immediate suspension of the CPD-as-prerequisite policy;
  2. Constitution of a broad-based committee to review MCPD legality and implementation;
  3. Return to LPA-compliant procedures for practising certificate issuance;
  4. CPD to remain voluntary;
  5. Provision of free or subsidized CPD programmes;
  6. Inclusive and consultative reforms.

ABLIF issued a five-day ultimatum to the NBA to suspend the policy and engage in meaningful dialogue, warning that failure to comply would compel the coalition to pursue all lawful remedies, including litigation, public advocacy, and petitions to domestic and international oversight bodies.

The letter comes after a meeting between ABLIF representatives and the NBA President on August 1, 2025, which ABLIF described as “hostile,” though some concessions were reportedly made.

ABLIF reaffirmed its willingness to engage with the NBA in good faith, emphasizing the need for reforms that respect legality, fairness, and access within the legal profession.

Below, read the full letter.

14th August, 2025.

The President,
Nigerian Bar Association,
NBA House,
Muhammadu Buhari Way,
Central Business District,
Federal Capital Territory- Abuja.
Dear Sir,

RE: NO CPD POINT, NO BAR PRACTICE LICENCE’ and RE: ABLIF 1ST OF AUGUST MEETING WITH THE NBA PRESIDENT UPON INVITATION VEHEMENT ABLIF POSITION LETTER

We write on behalf of the Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF), a broad-based coalition of Nigerian legal practitioners committed to promoting fairness, legality, and access within the legal profession.

We begin by expressing our dissatisfaction at the ‘hostile manner’ the representatives of ABLIF were handled and addressed by the NBA President at the meeting and the ‘No Going Back adamant stand’ affirmed and maintained at the said meeting by the NBA President.
However, we acknowledge that some concessions were made towards the agitations of ABLIF by the NBA.
Hence, we deem it fit to categorically restate our position at ABLIF in regard to our agitation and advocacy.
We therefore wish to further but rather vehemently formally register our strong opposition to the said recent NBA directive under the MCPD Rules 2025, which seeks to make the acquisition of a minimum of five (5) CPD/CLE credit hours a mandatory precondition for:
– Issuance of the 2026 Practising Certificate;
– Access to NBA Stamps and Seals;
– The right of audience before courts or tribunals;
– Drafting and filing of legal documents.
Our vehement position at ABLIF remains that this directive, though well-intentioned, is deeply problematic on multiple legal, constitutional, economic, and logistical grounds. We therefore vehemently summarize our objections as follows:

I. Legal Overreach
The Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), is the only statutory legislation in Nigeria which governs the practice of law in Nigeria, and the said Act does not in any way empower the NBA or the NBA President to impose CPD requirements as a precondition for issuance of the practising certificate and assuming but without conceding that the Act does, the Act does not in any confer the power to restrict the practice licence of any lawyer on the NBA (one of private registered associations of Nigerian lawyers) or the NBA President or any person, unless he fulfils the acquisition of a minimum of five (5) CPD/CLE credit hours a mandatory precondition for:
– Issuance of the 2026 Practising Certificate;
– Access to NBA Stamps and Seals;
– The right of audience before courts or tribunals;
– Drafting and filing of legal documents.
Nevertheless, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria constitutes the only exception to the above stated rule under this paragraph.
We wish to further vehemently state our position at ABLIF that the practice of law or the legal profession is an issue of statute by which only the National Assembly of Nigeria has been Constitutionally empowered to ‘designate’ by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as the Constitution). Item 49 of the Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution is clear on this point when it provides thus
‘Professional Occupation as may be designated by the National Assembly’.
Also, by section 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution, further provides on the exclusive powers of the National Assembly to make laws on the Professional Occupation of the legal practice or legal profession when it provides thus
‘4.—(1) The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
(2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.
(3) The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall, save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.’.
Sequel to the provisions of the Constitution above, the National Assembly has enacted the Legal Practitioners’ Act, 2004-herein after referred to as LPA, ‘designating the legal profession and making laws on who is a lawyer as well as the practice of the law of a lawyer including the qualifications for the issuance of the practice licence of a lawyer’. Thus, Section 2 of the LPA has provided on who is entitled to practice law when it provides in section 2(1) of the Act thus
‘2. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll.’.
Furthermore, sections 7(1) of the LPA are clear on the issue of who is to be enrolled as a lawyer (as relevant in the present context of Nigerian lawyers) where it provides thus
‘7. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be entitled to have his name enrolled if, and only if-
(a) he has been called to the Bar by the Benchers; and
(b) he produces a certificate of his call to the Bar to the registrar.
Furthermore, Section 8(1) of the LPA has granted every legal practitioner the right of audience (in other words, the right to practice law as a lawyer) in all courts of law sitting in Nigeria, when it provides thus
8. (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection and of any enactment in force in any part of Nigeria prohibiting or restricting the right of any person to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings before the Supreme Court or the Sharia Court of Appeal or any area or customary court, a legal practitioner shall have the right of audience in all courts of law sitting in Nigeria. (Underlining and the colouring of the words are mine for emphasis).
Furthermore, section 8(2) of the LPA has laid down the conditions for legal practice, for issuance of annual practice licence to a lawyer, who is to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments), to the effect that ‘the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’ shall carry out all these functions, where it provides thus:
(2) No legal practitioner (other than such a person as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act) shall be accorded the right of audience in any court in Nigeria in any year, UNLESS HE HAS PAID TO THE REGISTRAR IN RESPECT OF THAT YEAR, A PRACTISING FEE-
(a) in the case of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, of N200;
(b) in the case of a person of 15 or more years standing as a legal practitioner at the beginning of that year, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, of N100;
(c) in the case of a person of more than 10 but less than 15 years standing as a legal practitioner at the beginning of that year, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, of N75;
(d) in the case of a person of more than 5 but not more than 10 years standing as a legal practitioner at the beginning of that year, of N40; and
(e) in any other case, of N20.
(3) The Attorney-General of the Federation may, after consultation with the Bar Council, from time to time vary the various rates of practising fees specified in subsection (2) of this section.
(4) The registrar shall-
(a) issue to every person by whom a practising fee is paid in respect of any year a receipt for the fee in the prescribed form; and
(b) as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of January in each year and thereafter from time to time during the year as he considers appropriate cause to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year; and
(c) pay over to the association as soon as may be after the end of each year a sum equal to nine tenths of the aggregate amount of the practising fees received by him in pursuance of this section during the year, and a receipt purporting to be issued and list purporting to be printed in pursuance of this subsection in respect of any year shall be evidence that the person named in the receipt or, as the case may be, that any person named in the list has paid to the registrar the practising fee in respect of that year.
(5) Legal practitioners appearing before any court, tribunal or person exercising jurisdiction conferred by law to hear and determine any matter (including an arbitrator) shall take precedence among themselves according to the table of precedence set out in the First Schedule to this Act.’ (Underlining and colouring of words are ours at ABLIF for emphasis).
Furthermore, the interpretation of ‘Registrar’ in the above Section 8 of the LPA has been defined under section 24 of the LPA to mean ‘the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court’. In fact, as can be observed, what amounts to practicing licence for a lawyer to be entitled to practice as a lawyer in a particular year is ‘printed in the prescribed form’ a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year. Also, this list is not free of charge but shall be paid for and the Supreme Court has been losing revenue in this regard.
To this extent, it is our vehement position that in regard to the issues of collection of practicing fee and the printing of the list which serves as a practice licence or having the effect or implication as a practice licence, only the ‘Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’ is statutorily empowered by the LPA to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (including the issuance of receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year not the Nigerian Bar Association!
Also, there is no where in the LPA where the name of the NBA or any other name apart from the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, has been mentioned and or delegated to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year! Also, it is our vehement position that the LPA does not in any way empower the NBA to impose CPD requirements as a precondition for issuance of the practising certificate and assuming but without conceding that the Act does, the Act does not in any way confer the power to restrict the practice licence of any lawyer on NBA unless he fulfils the acquisition of a minimum of five (5) CPD/CLE credit hours a mandatory precondition for:
– Issuance of the 2026 Practising Certificate;
– Access to NBA Stamps and Seals;
– The right of audience before courts or tribunals;
– Drafting and filing of legal documents.

We vehemently submit that any proposal for amendment by the General Council of the Bar on the acclaimed but rather non-existent ‘GAPS’ therein the LPA, is ill-intended and ill-sponsored.

We further vehemently state our position that the law is very clear that no subsidiary legislation validly made or not supersedes the provisions of a statute, such as the LPA in the present contention of ABLIF.

In the case of Ewete v. Gyang (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 496) 728, the court made a pronouncement on resolution of conflict between an enabling law and subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The Court held thus

“it is settled law that a subordinate legislation is prima facie, ultra vires if it is inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the statute by which the enabling power is conferred.’.
Essentially, a subsidiary legislation being made pursuant to the power conferred by the principal legislation or enactment, derives its force and efficacy from the principal legislation to which it is secondary and complimentary. Unarguably, it is the principal law that provides subsidiary legislation the source of its existence. In other words, without the principal law, there can be no subsidiary legislation. For instance, in the case of in Gov. Oyo State v. Folayan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 413) 292, the Supreme Court, Per Onu, JSC held that “A subsidiary legislation derives its validity from a substantive law”. Also, See the cases of: Din v. A.G.F. (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.147)?; Olanrewaju v. Oyeyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 229; Njoku & Ors v. Ihenatu & Ors. (2008) LPELR -3871 (CA). Also, see the cases of: NNPC & ANOR. V. FAMFA OIL LTD. (2012) LPELR-7812(SC) (Consolidated) Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; see also FAMFA OIL LIMITED v. A-G FED & ANOR (2007) LPELR-9023(CA) where the Court of Appeal, Per Abdullahi, JCA held thus: “It is the law that subsidiary legislations must conform with the principal law which provided the source of their existence.”
In the same vein, it is worth noting the case of Olanrewaju v. Oyeyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 229, where the Court of Appeal reiterated the principle of law that a subsidiary legislation, being one that derives its authority and validity from and subject to the provisions of the parent enabling statute, cannot expand or curtail the provisions of the substantive statute. This position of law was succinctly emphasized by His Lordship, Tabai, JCA (as he then was) when My Lord held thus

“It is settled law that a subsidiary legislation derives its authority and validity from and subject to the provisions of the parent enabling statute. It follows therefore that a subsidiary legislation cannot expand or curtail the provisions of the substantive statute. It must be within the authority derived in the main enabling statute.”. Also see: Olanrewaju v. Oyeyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt.697)229; see also Din v. A. -G., Federation (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.87) 147; Gov., Oyo State v. Folayan (1995) 8 NWLR (pt.413) 292 at 327 and Ishola v. Ajiboye (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.352) 506 at 621.

We wish to humbly submit that a subsidiary legislation must be in conformity with the terms of its enabling law as is. Thus, where any provision of a subsidiary legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Principal Statute, the provisions of such subsidiary legislation shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be declared void. See: Odeneye v. Efunga (1990) NWLR (Pt.164)618; (1990) 11-12 S.C 122, Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC.
Thus, it is our humble vehement position that any attempt by the NBA or the NBA President or any other person, to rob and or take over and or deny the statutory public duties and functions of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year or (by the NBA or the NBA President or any person) to impose CPD requirements as a precondition for issuance of the practising certificate conditioned upon the fulfilment of the acquisition of a minimum of five (5) CPD/CLE credit hours as a licence to so practice as a lawyer is ‘ultra vires’, illegal, unlawful, of no effect and null and void! The words ‘Ultra vires’ was defined by the Court of Appeal, in the case of Ekanem & Ors. v. Obu (2010) LPELR-4084, Per Ngwuta JCA, to mean ‘beyond or above the power conferred’.
That function lies solely with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, and any contrary enforcement by the NBA or the NBA President or any person stands on legally shaky ground.
II. Violation of Lawyers’ Rights
Making CPD credit hours a condition precedent to practice infringes upon:
– Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the right to a fair hearing;
– Section 17(3), which secures the right to work and earn a livelihood without discrimination.

It is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and a direct affront to the rights of duly called and enrolled legal practitioners.

III. Economic and Logistical Hardship
While we have observed some concessions by the NBA in regard to the CPD programmes, the said programs are portrayed as widely available and low-cost, whereas, the actual experience of many lawyers—especially junior, rural, and less-connected colleagues—tells a different story:
– Fees for CPD programmes range from ₦30,000 to over ₦1.5 million with little or no impact on the lawyers and or their legal practice but just a mere attendance seeking and a smiling financial opportunity to the organisers of the Continuing Legal Education (CLE);
– Virtual sessions are often overcrowded or inaccessible due to limited slots or poor connectivity as we maintain the position that lawyers in Nigeria are over Two Hundred Thousand (200,000.00) and the capacity of the application platform for the attendance and or acquisition of the CPD points are limited compared to the population of the proposed audience thereby creating avoidable discrimination in such learning;
– Physical attendance is impractical in many areas due to the absence of NBA structures, poor infrastructure, or security concerns.
To penalise lawyers for circumstances beyond their control is inequitable and exclusionary.

IV. Questionable Implementation
The decision to deny practising certificates or court access based on MCPD compliance is not only punitive but potentially unlawful, as the MCPD Rules 2025 are not legislation and cannot override existing laws or constitutionally guaranteed rights.
V. Our Vehement Humble Demands
We respectfully, but firmly request the following reliefs:
1. Immediate suspension of the CPD-as-prerequisite-for-practising-certificate policy;
2. Constitution of a broad-based committee to review the legality, implementation, and sustainability of the MCPD framework, with inputs from lawyers across all spectrums;
3. A return to LPA-compliant procedures for issuing practising certificates—based strictly on payment of the prescribed annual fees;
4. Retention of CPD as a voluntary professional development tool, not a mandatory licence condition;
5. Provision of free or fully subsidised CPD programmes, accessible to all lawyers regardless of location;
6. Adoption of a phased, inclusive and consultative approach to implementing far-reaching reforms.

VI. Further Ultimatum and Further Action
We further strongly but newly or freshly urge the NBA, under your leadership, to act within five (5) working days of receipt of this letter to:
– Publicly suspend the implementation of the MCPD policy as a prerequisite for practice;
– Commence stakeholder dialogue towards a fair and lawful resolution.
Failing which, ABLIF and its partners shall be left with no alternative but to pursue all lawful remedies to protect our professional rights and constitutional freedoms, including but not limited to litigation, public interest advocacy, petitions to oversight bodies, and engagement with domestic and international stakeholders.
Let the record show that we approached your office in good faith, believing in your integrity and vision. We however wish to state and reaffirm that we at ABLIF are always open to open but non-oppressive engagements with the NBA or the NBA President towards an amicable resolution of this dispute and or conflict. We hope you will respond in kind rather politely—with wisdom, courage, and justice.

Thank you for your attention.
Yours faithfully,

………………………………………………….. E-signed: ………………………………………………..

Amb. Hameed Ajibola Jimoh, Esq. Chukwuemeka Clement, Esq.

National Convener, National Co-Convener,

For: For:
Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF). Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF).

E-signed: …………………………………………………….
Christabel Zoe Ayuk, Esq.
(National Secretary, ABLIF),

For:
Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF)

[Now Available] -- From Crime Scene To Courtroom: An Authoritative Legal Handbook On Police Investigations In this authoritative work, Basil Momodu Esq., titled Police Investigations in Nigeria Through the Cases 📖 Available now Call 07051822705 or any of the recommended independent booksellers listed hereunder. ______________________________________________________________________ “History of Rivers State Judiciary: A Compendium of Personalities on the Bench.” Authored by Ampim Gogo Blankson, Esq., Deputy Director at the Rivers State Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with the Rivers State Judiciary 💰 Cover Price: ₦20,000.00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) Bukky Law Books, Rivers State High Court Complex, Moscow Road, Port Harcourt – 📞 08034868754📞 08034729738📞 Enquiries: ______________________________________________________________________ Law Practice Kit (Second Edition) And Legal Luminaries Series 2 Unveiled Authored by Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, LL.M, Notary Public Law Practice Kit (Second Edition) and Legal Luminaries Series 2 📚 For Enquiries and Orders, Contact: 📞 08055476823, 📞 08164683735, 📞 08033855230 ______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
“Evidence Act: Complete Annotation” by renowned legal experts Sanni & Etti.
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 _________________________________________________________________