The Pioneer Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, OFR, MFR, SAN, has called for an immediate cessation of the public hostilities between the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN, and a respected member of the Inner Bar, Chief Jibrin Samuel Okutepa, SAN.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The simmering dispute, which has spilled into the public domain via widely circulated correspondence and legal filings, revolves around the ex parte orders granted by the Oyo State High Court in Suit No. I/205/2026 and Suit No. I/221/2026, and the subsequent petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) filed against Chief Okutepa, SAN, by the NBA President. Chief Gadzama, speaking as the Founder of the Nigerian Law Society and a seasoned Bar leader, expressed deep concern that the current tenor of engagement between the two distinguished Senior Advocates is creating an unnecessary wedge within the profession at a critical juncture.
“The recent exchanges between the President of the Nigerian Bar Association and Chief J.S. Okutepa, SAN, are both unfortunate and avoidable. We are witnessing two of our finest minds and most committed Bar-men locked in a very public and increasingly acrimonious confrontation,” Gadzama, SAN observed. “While robust advocacy and the protection of constitutional principles are non-negotiable, the manner and temperature of this dispute do not augur well for the overall health and unity of the Bar. This is a moment that calls for statesmanship, not escalation.”
Chief Gadzama noted that the timing of the rift is particularly sensitive, coming just as the Nigerian Bar Association prepares for its 2026 General Elections and with the nation itself gearing up for a broader political transition. He argued that allowing internal wrangling to dominate the headlines risks eroding public confidence in the legal profession’s ability to regulate itself. “When two Senior Advocates of Nigeria engage in this manner, the entire profession bleeds. I, therefore, respectfully call on Mazi Osigwe, SAN, and Chief Okutepa, SAN, to sheathe their swords in the overriding interest of the Bar. Let us lower the temperature. We cannot afford to project an image of a divided house when the Bar should be a beacon of stability,” Gadzama, SAN appealed.
The learned Silk extended his call for restraint to the wider community of the Body of Benchers and past NBA Presidents, urging them to wade into the matter discreetly to broker a truce. “Our elders in the profession must not remain silent observers. This is precisely the kind of situation where the wise counsel of respected neutrals is required to pull the warring parties back from the brink and foster an environment for amicable resolution.”
On the substantive issues before the Oyo State High Court particularly regarding the ex parte orders granted and the interpretation of Section 10(5) of the NBA Constitution, 2015 (as amended), as well as Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Part III of the Second Schedule (which govern geographical zoning and micro-zoning for national offices) Gadzama, SAN adopted a pragmatic and measured stance. While he believes the Bar possesses the internal conflict resolution mechanisms to settle such matters amicably, he acknowledged that if the parties are determined to ventilate their grievances through the judicial process, this must be done with the civility and forensic discipline expected of ministers in the temple of justice. In doing so, the parties must show utmost respect for, and obedience to, the orders the court has already granted pending the determination of the Motion on Notice (which is now before the Court of Appeal, the appeal having been entered).
Crucially, Gadzama, SAN observed that the dispute transcends the personalities of Mazi Osigwe, SAN, and Chief Okutepa, SAN. At its core, he noted, the entire controversy is fundamentally about the impending NBA elections and the future electoral framework of the Bar. “This is not merely a clash between two individuals; it is a dispute that strikes at the heart of how we conduct our national elections,” he remarked. “The underlying questions regarding geographical zoning, micro-zoning, and the binding nature of the Bar’s internal constitutional provisions will shape the 2026 elections and beyond. Until those questions are resolved, every candidate and every constituency will remain uncertain.”
“If the issues of zoning and micro-zoning are to be tested, then perhaps there is a silver lining. After all, we are trained advocates, skilled in the art of marshalling arguments and presenting positions before the courts,” Gadzama, SAN stated. “It may indeed be in the long-term interest of the Bar to have a definitive judicial pronouncement on these constitutional provisions once and for all. An authoritative interpretation by the court will kill the perennial ambiguity and political maneuvering that often surrounds our electoral cycle. If the court clarifies the exact scope and mandatory nature of these zoning provisions, it will serve as a guide for future elections and finally lay to rest the recurring controversies regarding the rotation of offices among the Northern, Eastern, and Western zones, and crucially, among the distinct sub-groups within those zones.”
Regarding the ancillary issue of the LPDC petition, Gadzama, SAN cautioned against the weaponization of disciplinary processes amidst political disputes, while simultaneously affirming the right of any lawyer to seek redress before the appropriate bodies. He emphasized that the LPDC is a hallowed institution designed for objective scrutiny, and all parties involved must trust the process without resorting to trial by media. “If a petition has been filed, the proper venue for its ventilation is before the LPDC. It should not be a subject of press wars. Let the process be civil, let it be professional, and let the chips fall where they may based on the evidence and the law, not public sentiment,” he concluded.
Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN is the Pioneer Chairman of the NBA-SPIDEL. He also served as Vice-Chairman of the NBA Section on Legal Practice (NBA-SLP) and as a Council Member of the NBA Section on Business Law (NBA-SBL). He was a Chairman of the Abuja Branch of the NBA. He is the Founder of the Nigerian Law Society (NLS).
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
