NBA 2020 Elections: Why The Lopsided Adoption By A Faction Of Egbe Amofin Does Not Represent The Decision Of Majority Of The SouthWest Bar By Adebayo Orekoya Esq.

The Lopsided Adoption:

From the circumstances leading to and surrounding the December 14 reported  “adoption” of a candidate by the section of the Egbe Amofin group, it is clear, that the adoption could not by any stretch of anyone’s reasonable imagination be said to represent the collective decision or wish of the generality or overwhelming majority of Lawyers from the defunct Western Region of Nigeria which make up the Egbe Amofin States. Another aspect of the adoption that leaves much to be desired and leaves no one in doubt that the adoption does not represent the decision of lawyers from the states that make up the Egbe Amofin is easily found in the purported Adoption Statement, prepared and signed by architects of that lopsided adoption. The supposed “Adoption Committee” whose members were merely handpicked with clear instructions to recommended a particular candidate/aspirant for adoption, was chaired by Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN. Consequently, delivering the report of the “Adoption Committee,” which was later approved hook, nail and sinker, by the very few lawyers present at the December 14, 2019 meeting of a section of Egbe Amofin, which held at the Afe Babalola Bar Centre in Ibadan, Oyo State, Chief Akintola had declared  as follows:

“The Committee chose Deacon Dele Adesina as Egbe Amofin`s sole and official candidate in the 2020 NBA presidential election.… Oyo-Osun will produce the President the next time zoning favours the Western Zone, in 2026. Lagos-Ogun will follow suit [in 2032].”

No one present (and of course, judging from the video we saw, only a few persons were present) at the meeting saw anything wrong in the recommendation by the Akintola Committee; no one pointed out that the recommendation had closed its eyes to, and shut out the express provisions of Part 2.1 (a) and (d) of the 2^nd Schedule to the NBA Constitution (as amended), which provides that “Where a position is zoned to any particular geographical zone, the position shall be rotated and held in turn by the different groups and/or sections in the geographical zone.” Instead of anyone pointing out this anomaly in the recommendation for adoption, Mr Ayotunde Ibitoye moved a motion for the wholesale adoption of the recommendation while Mr Adetunji Osho seconded, leading the few persons present at the meeting to endorse the recommendation. Thereafter, the chairman of the meeting who had single-handedly constituted the Adoption Committee, announced that the Adoption Report “would be forwarded to our brothers in Eastern Bar Forum, Arewa Forum and the Midwest Forum as the position of Egbe Amofin.”  

The Bad News

The first question every reasonable bystander ought to ask is, Why would those present at the meeting endorse a recommendation that completely excluded the Midwest (a section of the Western Zone), contrary to the provisions of Part 2.1(a) and (d) of the 2^nd Schedule of the NBA Constitution? Does it mean that those few lawyers present at the meeting wanted only the Southwest States (of Lagos, Osun, Ekiti, Ondo, Oyo, and Ogun) to be the only ones producing the president of the NBA each time it is the turn of the Western Zone? Would it not amount to an afront to even contemplate let alone send such a report to their counterparts in the Midwest Bar?

 The Good News

Happily, a great majority of South-West (Yoruba) lawyers were not part of that lopsided decision of just a few to subvert the provisions of the NBA Constitution. No wonder, many southwest lawyers have distanced themselves from same, knowing the adoption does not represent equity neither does it promote equality between the component units of NBA`s Western Zone. Hence, such an unconstitutional decision can hardly be seen as representatives of the will or decision of the majority of lawyers from the Egbe Amofin States. I as a bona fide  member of Egbe Amofin, therefore respectfully advise Nigerian lawyers to completely disregard the purported adoption and stick to the provisions of the NBA Constitution by electing a candidate from within the states of Lagos, Osun, Ekiti, Ondo, Oyo, and Ogun, so that in 2026, when rotations comes again to NBA`s Western Zone, it would rightfully be the turn of the Mid-West Bar to produce the NBA President, and all of us would then queue behind the Midwest to produce the NBA President. I humbly recommend the following formular, in order to uphold the spirit and intendment of part 2.1 (a), (d) & (e) of the NBA Constitution (as amended):

(1) The South-West produced the NBA President in 2008 (Mr. Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, NBA President 2008-2010);
(2) The Mid-West produced the NBA President in 2014 (Mr Augustine Alegeh, SAN, SAN, NBA President 2014-2016);
(3) Let the South-West produce in 2020 (this year) – to rule from 2020 to 2022; and
(4) Let us support the Mid-West to produce in 2026 – to rule from 2026 to 2028.
(5) And so on in that order.

And let this be applied in all other NBA Zones, across Nigeria. This is the only way to eschew acrimony and adequately take care of the rule of law as encapsulated in part 2.1 (a), (d) & (e) of the NBA Constitution (as amended). It would also promote equity and equality and ensure that we carry everyone along in order to engender a true sense of belonging among the various sections that make up the Zones. Since NBA`s Western Zone has two major sub-zones, any decision by any group of persons which has no plans to recognize and accommodate the two sections of the Western Zonal Bar in decisions relating to sharing of slots for the NBA Presidency is not a decision by the South-West neither is it a decision by the Yorubas. Let all lawyers in Nigeria go out, disregarding the adoption, and vote a candidate of their choice in the forthcoming NBA 2020 Presidential elections. The December 14, 2019 adoption by a faction of the Egbe Amofin, being clearly against the spirit and intendment of part 2.1 (a), (d) & (e) of the NBA Constitution (as amended), is a wrong, unjust decision and as such should be treated as a  complete non-issue because no one has any right to do what he pleases unless when he or she pleases to do what is right.

Written by Adebayo Orekoya Esq. (Legal Practitioner)