Analysis of the Judgment —FHC/ABJ/CS/1238/2025
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/SADR.jpeg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
Victor Ozioma Nwadike v. Nigerian Bar Association, General Council of the Bar & Attorney-General of the Federation
Court: Federal High Court, Abuja Judge: Hon. Justice M.G. Umar Date: January 27, 2026
The Core Issue
At the heart of this case is a fundamental question: can the Nigerian Bar Association, through its own rules and policies, impose conditions on a lawyer’s right to appear in court that go beyond what the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, LFN 2004, provides? Justice Umar answered this question with an emphatic no.
What the Court Decided
The court made five key determinations:
First, it declared that the Legal Practitioners Act is the principal and exhaustive legislation on a lawyer’s right of audience in Nigerian courts. The word “exhaustive” is critical here — it means the Act says everything there is to say on the subject, leaving no room for supplementation by any other body.
Second, it declared that the NBA and the General Council of the Bar have no statutory power to impose additional requirements beyond those in the Act.
Third, it nullified provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, and the MCPD Rules, 2025, insofar as they tied MCPD compliance to a lawyer’s right of audience, practice licence renewal, or issuance of NBA stamps and seals.
Fourth, it restrained the NBA and all its agents from enforcing MCPD as a condition for court appearance.
Fifth, it declined to order a refund of MCPD fees already paid and made no order as to costs.
Correct Application of the Supremacy of Statute
The judgment rests on a sound legal foundation. In Nigeria’s legal hierarchy, an Act of the National Assembly (such as the Legal Practitioners Act) takes precedence over subsidiary rules and regulations made by professional bodies. The NBA, however influential, is not a legislative body. It cannot create conditions for legal practice that the National Assembly has not authorized. Justice Umar was right to hold that if the Legal Practitioners Act does not require MCPD as a condition for the right of audience, the NBA cannot unilaterally introduce such a requirement through its own rules.
This aligns with well-established principles of administrative law — a body exercising delegated powers cannot exceed the scope of the authority delegated to it. The NBA’s rule-making power under the Legal Practitioners Act does not extend to creating new preconditions for practice that the Act itself does not contemplate.
Protection of Access to Justice
There is a broader public interest dimension to this ruling. When the NBA ties MCPD compliance to a lawyer’s ability to appear in court, the effect cascades beyond the individual lawyer to their clients. A litigant whose lawyer is denied audience because of unpaid MCPD fees or incomplete CPD points suffers a denial of access to justice through no fault of their own. The judgment implicitly recognizes that the right of audience is not merely a privilege of the lawyer but a critical component of the justice delivery system.
Addressing a Legitimate Grievance
The MCPD regime had become a genuine source of frustration for many Nigerian lawyers. The costs were significant, particularly for younger lawyers and sole practitioners. The quality of some approved programmes was questioned. And the enforcement mechanism — tying compliance to stamps, seals, and court appearance — was perceived as heavy-handed. This judgment validates what many in the profession had been saying for years: the NBA overstepped its bounds.
Weaknesses and Concerns
The Refund Question
The court’s refusal to order a refund of MCPD fees is arguably the weakest part of the judgment. If the court has declared that the NBA had no power to impose MCPD as a condition for practice, then the fees collected in furtherance of that unlawful policy were collected without legal basis. The logical consequence should be restitution. By nullifying the rules but allowing the NBA to retain the financial benefits of those rules, the court has created an uncomfortable outcome where the NBA profits from a policy now declared to be ultra vires. The judgment does not appear to provide reasoning for this refusal, which weakens its internal consistency.
What Exactly Survives?
The judgment nullifies the RPC 2023 and MCPD Rules 2025 only “to the extent that” they impose conditions on the right of audience. This qualifier is important but also creates ambiguity. The MCPD programme touches several aspects of professional regulation — not just court appearance but also practice licensing, professional development, and quality assurance. The judgment does not clearly delineate which specific provisions survive and which do not. This will likely generate further disputes about the scope of the ruling.
The Broader Regulatory Vacuum
While the judgment is legally sound on the narrow question of statutory supremacy, it leaves a policy vacuum. The reality is that continuing professional development serves a legitimate purpose in any profession. Lawyers, like doctors, engineers, and accountants, benefit from ongoing education to keep their skills current. By striking down the enforcement mechanism without acknowledging the legitimate regulatory objective behind it, the judgment may be seen as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The better approach might have been for the court to acknowledge the importance of continuing education while holding that the proper route for making it mandatory is through an amendment to the Legal Practitioners Act by the National Assembly — not through NBA rules alone. The judgment hints at this but does not develop the point fully.
No Order as to Costs
The decision to make no order as to costs is notable. The plaintiff successfully challenged a major professional policy and obtained substantive reliefs. In the ordinary course, costs follow the event. The absence of a costs order, combined with the refusal to order refunds, means the plaintiff bore the entire financial burden of a public interest litigation that benefited the entire legal profession. This is a point that could have been handled more generously by the court.
Implications for the Legal Profession
The most immediate effect is that no lawyer in Nigeria can lawfully be denied the right to appear in court for failure to complete MCPD requirements or pay associated fees. The NBA stamps and seals regime, insofar as it is linked to MCPD compliance, is also affected. Lawyers who had been unable to practise because of MCPD non-compliance now have a court order backing their right to appear.
The NBA will almost certainly appeal this judgment. The association has invested significant institutional capital in the MCPD programme, and the ruling effectively dismantles the enforcement architecture of that programme. Until the appeal is determined — or unless the NBA obtains a stay of execution — the judgment remains binding.
Legislative Reform
If the NBA genuinely believes that mandatory continuing education is essential for the profession (and there are good arguments that it is), the proper path forward after this judgment is to lobby the National Assembly for an amendment to the Legal Practitioners Act that expressly provides for MCPD as a statutory requirement. This would address the court’s objection, which is not that continuing education is bad policy, but that the NBA lacks the legal authority to make it a condition for practice without statutory backing.
Precedent Value
This judgment establishes an important precedent on the limits of professional body regulation in Nigeria. It sends a clear message that professional associations, no matter how well-established, must operate within the boundaries of their enabling statutes. They cannot expand their own powers through internal rules and expect courts to enforce those rules as if they were law.
Conclusion
Justice Umar’s judgment is fundamentally correct on the law. The NBA exceeded its statutory authority by making MCPD a condition for the right of audience, and the court was right to strike down that requirement. However, the judgment is not without its shortcomings — the refusal to order refunds is difficult to justify, the scope of what survives the ruling is not entirely clear, and the broader question of how to ensure continuing professional competence in the legal profession remains unanswered.
”]
The ball is now in two courts: the Court of Appeal, where the NBA will likely challenge this decision, and the National Assembly, which holds the ultimate power to settle the matter by amending the Legal Practitioners Act if it sees fit. In the meantime, this judgment stands as a significant reaffirmation of the principle that no body — however respected — can override an Act of Parliament.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
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
________________________________________________________________________ The Law And Practice Of Redundancy In Nigeria: A Practitioner’s Guide, Authored By A Labour & Employment Law Expert Bimbo Atilola
_______________________________________________________________________
New Year Promo: Get Five Maritime Law Books For N150,000 — 63% Discount
The promotion, which commenced on January 8 and runs until February 8, 2026, offers five core maritime law books authored by Dr. Emeka Akabogu, SAN, ordinarily valued at N405,000, for just N150,000 — a 63% discount.
Interested buyers can place their orders through the following channels:
Phone: 0704 329 3271
Online Store: https://paystack.shop/aa-bookstore
Website: www.akabogulaw.com
______________________________________________________________________
