*Say HAGF Acting Alone Cannot Constitute Bar Council
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/yemi.jpg")
The Nigerian Bar Association Representatives to the General Council of the Bar (GCB) have issued a formal statement distancing the Bar Council from the report attributed to the Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, containing directions on the NBA election crisis, stating categorically that the report “did not emanate from the Bar Council,” that the AGF “acting alone does not constitute the Bar Council,” and that the NBA election “was not on the agenda and was not discussed at any point” at the most recent meeting of the Bar Council.
The statement, signed collectively by the NBA Representatives to the General Council of the Bar, directly challenges the authority and provenance of the AGF’s comprehensive directions that had called for the disbandment of the ECNBA, the disengagement of election service providers Mikrodigital Connect and Thanelinc Nigeria Limited, the postponement of the NBA election, the compulsory use of NIN for voter authentication, and the constitution of an Independent Electoral Oversight Committee.
The NBA Representatives opened by noting that the report “presently circulating on social media” was “purportedly issued by the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation” and that some members of the Bar had posited that the AGF issued it in his capacity as the President of the Bar Council.
However, the Representatives identified multiple irregularities in the form and manner of the document’s issuance that prevented them from even confirming its authenticity.
“The NBA Representatives noted that the said Report was not issued on the official letterhead of the HAGF, officially communicated to the NBA President or to any other appropriate authority, or addressed to any person or authority. It was merely circulated on the social media by a blogger,” the statement declared.
“Consequently, the NBA Representatives can neither confirm nor deny that the Report emanated from the HAGF,” the Representatives stated.
The observation that the report was “merely circulated on social media by a blogger” rather than through official channels raises a procedural question that several legal commentators have noted: how a document purporting to direct the disbandment of an electoral committee, the postponement of a national election, and the replacement of service providers for an association of over 80,000 lawyers came to be disseminated through informal social media channels rather than through official communication to the NBA President, the ECNBA Chairman, the candidates, or any other authority.
The Representatives then delivered the core of their statement: regardless of whether the report came from the AGF personally, it cannot be treated as emanating from the Bar Council.
“Whether or not the said Report emanated from the HAGF, it should not be treated or understood as emanating from the Bar Council. This is the main thrust of this Statement. For the avoidance of doubt, the said Report did not emanate from the Bar Council, which is apparent on its face,” the statement declared.
The Representatives grounded their position in the statutory framework governing the Bar Council.
“Section 1 of the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) establishes the Bar Council and clearly provides for its constitution, composition, and powers. The Bar Council is composed of the HAGF as the President, thirty-six (36) States Attorneys-General, and twenty (20) NBA representatives,” the statement stated.
“Accordingly, the HAGF, acting alone, does not constitute the Bar Council. Any report or action issued solely by the HAGF cannot, without more, be regarded as the decision or resolution of the Bar Council,” the Representatives stated.
The point is legally fundamental. The Bar Council is a statutory body with a defined membership of 57 persons: the AGF as President, the 36 state Attorneys-General, and 20 NBA representatives. Decisions of the Bar Council are decisions of this collective body, not decisions of its President acting unilaterally. The AGF’s status as President of the Bar Council gives him the authority to preside over the body’s meetings and to act as its representative, but it does not empower him to issue directives in the name of the Bar Council without the body having deliberated and resolved on the matter.
The Representatives noted that the AGF himself appeared to recognise this distinction: “Indeed, the HAGF has not stated anywhere in the Report that it represents the decision of the Bar Council. Consequently, there is no basis for inferring that the Report constitutes an official act, decision, or resolution of the Bar Council.”
The Representatives disclosed a fact that further undermines any suggestion that the report carries Bar Council authority.
“We further note that at the recent meeting of the Bar Council held at the Transcorp Hilton, Abuja, on June 23, 2026, which was attended by at least twenty (20) State Attorneys-General and fourteen (14) NBA Representatives, the NBA Election was not on the agenda and was not discussed at any point,” the statement revealed.
“The said Report cannot, therefore, be traced to any deliberation or resolution of the Bar Council,” the Representatives concluded.
This disclosure is significant. The Bar Council held a meeting just days before the AGF’s report was circulated, with substantial attendance including at least 20 state Attorneys-General and 14 NBA Representatives. If the AGF intended his directions on the NBA election to carry the authority of the Bar Council, the obvious forum for obtaining that authority was the June 23 meeting. The fact that the NBA election was not even placed on the agenda of that meeting, let alone discussed or resolved upon, demonstrates that the Bar Council as a body was not consulted, did not deliberate, and did not authorise the directions contained in the report.
The Representatives concluded with a statement of principle that encapsulates the entire controversy.
“The distinction between the actions of the President of the Bar Council acting in his individual official capacity, and the decisions of the Bar Council acting as a statutory body must be maintained in accordance with the LPA,” the statement declared.
The formulation draws a clear line between two different things: the AGF acting personally, however well-intentioned and however informed by the Olanipekun Committee’s findings, and the Bar Council acting as the statutory body established by the Legal Practitioners Act. The first is the personal intervention of the Chief Law Officer. The second is an institutional decision of a statutory body with defined membership, procedures, and powers.
The NBA Representatives’ position is that only the second carries the kind of authority that can bind the NBA and its organs. The first, however weighty and however deserving of respectful consideration, remains the personal view of one individual, albeit the most senior law officer in the country, and cannot be elevated to the status of a Bar Council decision simply because that individual happens to be the President of the Bar Council.
The NBA Representatives’ statement is the second formal challenge to the AGF’s authority to issue the directions. Senior Advocate Kunle Edun, SAN, a former NBA National Publicity Secretary, former National Welfare Secretary, and current member of the GCB, had earlier stated that “the NBA Trustees and the NEC of the NBA are the only bodies that can call for or suspend the election of the NBA” and had similarly noted that the AGF’s statement “is not on the official letterhead of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation.”
Taken together, the two interventions present a coordinated constitutional objection: the AGF’s directions, however substantively sound the Olanipekun Committee’s findings may be, lack the constitutional and statutory authority to override the NBA’s own governance organs. The Trustees, the NEC, or in extreme circumstances the Bar Council acting collectively, are the bodies empowered to make decisions about the NBA’s elections. The AGF acting alone, without convening the Bar Council, without placing the matter on its agenda, and without circulating his directions through official channels, cannot substitute his personal judgment for the institutional decision-making process prescribed by the Legal Practitioners Act and the NBA Constitution.
The statement was signed collectively by the NBA Representatives to the General Council of the Bar.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
As an added bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE ebook titled: “How to use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion.”
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
