A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Mike Ahamba, has called on the national leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to intervene in the prolonged leadership crisis rocking its Owerri Branch, declaring that the dispute has reached a stage where it can no longer be resolved internally.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
Ahamba, described as a former Chairman of the Branch, reportedly walked out of a recent branch meeting after expressing dissatisfaction with the conduct of proceedings, particularly the manner in which the Branch Chairman, Prof. Mazi Udegbulem, allegedly determined which members could speak.
The senior lawyer accused the Chairman of selectively recognising members and ruling those who raised inconvenient questions out of order, suggesting that decisions had been predetermined before the meeting commenced.
His intervention comes amid the continuing controversy over the receipt, management and expenditure of ₦100 million donated to the Branch by the Imo State Government, a dispute that has triggered competing investigative committees, disagreements over the procedure for removing the Chairman and multiple court proceedings.
In remarks reproduced in material accompanying a News Central television report on the crisis, Ahamba expressed concern about the conduct of the meeting and questioned whether meaningful deliberations were possible under the circumstances.
“It appears that the chairman had decided on whom to hear and whom not to hear. Anybody who raises a point that is not convenient to him, he says you are ruled out of order,” he was quoted as saying.
The Senior Advocate maintained that he would not continue participating in proceedings where, in his assessment, the outcome had already been determined.
“I will not be party to staying in a meeting where what should be done has been decided before coming to the meeting,” he stated.
Ahamba consequently appealed to the national leadership of the NBA to recognise the seriousness of the situation and intervene.
“This matter cannot be settled by the Owerri Bar. I appeal to the National Executive to know that there is a state of emergency here,” he declared.
The remarks were made in a News Central video report lasting approximately two minutes and 38 seconds. The broadcast carried the caption, “NBA Owerri Branch Crisis,” and identified Ahamba as a former Branch Chairman calling for national intervention.
The footage includes scenes from a meeting hall, members moving around the venue, officials seated at a high table and an outdoor interview with Ahamba.
However, the supplied material does not contain an independently verified transcription of the broadcast audio, while the precise recording date has not been conclusively established.
Ahamba’s reported remarks nevertheless introduce a new dimension to the disagreement, shifting attention from the financial allegations to the manner in which the Branch conducts its meetings and handles internal disputes.
At the centre of his complaint is the allegation that members were denied an adequate opportunity to express their views on matters affecting the Branch.
Although a presiding officer has responsibility for maintaining order during meetings, the exercise of that authority has become a subject of disagreement among members who question whether the Chairman should preside over deliberations concerning his own conduct.
The issue has featured repeatedly in the crisis, particularly following disagreements over the constitution of investigative committees and attempts by some members to initiate proceedings for the Chairman’s removal.
The controversy began in September 2026 following questions about the receipt, management and disbursement of ₦100 million given to the Owerri Branch by the Imo State Government.
The donation formed part of financial support reportedly provided to six NBA branches in Imo State, with the total assistance put at approximately ₦350 million.
Concerns about how the Owerri Branch’s allocation was administered prompted demands for greater financial disclosure and accountability.
A former Secretary of the Branch, Chinedu Agu, subsequently petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeking an investigation into the handling of the money.
The disagreement also led 183 members of the Branch to requisition an Extraordinary General Meeting to consider issues surrounding the funds and the leadership of the association.
An initial attempt to hold the meeting on October 10, 2026, was unsuccessful after members arrived at the Bar Centre within the Magistrates’ Court Complex, Owerri, and reportedly found the entrance locked with police officers stationed around the premises.
The incident deepened tensions between the Branch leadership and members demanding an investigation.
The NBA President, Mrs Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, subsequently intervened by constituting a three-member committee of national officers to examine the receipt, management and expenditure of the ₦100 million donation.
The committee comprised the NBA General Secretary, Afam Okeke; Third Vice-President, Iniobong Irene Pepple; and National Treasurer, Esther Jimoh.
In a letter dated October 14, 2026, the NBA President directed that the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for October 15 should proceed.
She also instructed the committee to attend the meeting as her representatives and observe the proceedings.
The committee was mandated to examine relevant financial documents, receive representations from affected persons and submit its findings and recommendations by October 30, 2026.
The President stressed that the investigation did not constitute a finding of wrongdoing against any person and that everyone whose conduct was called into question should be given an opportunity to respond.
The Extraordinary General Meeting eventually took place on October 15, but disagreements arose over whether Udegbulem should preside.
Members objected to his continuing as Chairman of the meeting because the matters under consideration concerned his leadership and the disputed expenditure.
Following objections, Udegbulem stepped aside from presiding over the proceedings.
The meeting subsequently dissolved a five-member committee earlier established by the Branch Chairman and constituted another five-member committee chaired by Chidi Nworka to investigate the receipt and expenditure of the government donation.
Other members of the committee were Mrs V. C. Joshua, Mr F. C. Obinna, Mr Chukwurah Onuorah and Ms Chima Ezike.
The committee was expected to submit its report at the Branch General Meeting scheduled for October 31, 2026.
The question of the Chairman’s removal was also deferred to that meeting, having regard to the applicable notice period under the Branch’s governing rules.
However, the October 15 resolutions became another source of disagreement.
Udegbulem challenged the authority and composition of the Branch investigative committee, maintaining that some persons appointed to investigate him had already taken positions against his leadership.
He argued that he could not reasonably expect an impartial investigation from a committee comprising individuals who had previously accused him of wrongdoing.
The Chairman also challenged aspects of the Extraordinary General Meeting and the decisions taken during it.
In one action before the High Court of Imo State, filed on October 20, 2026, he sought reliefs concerning the activities of the committee constituted by the Branch.
The court declined to grant the interim relief sought without notice and directed that the affected parties be put on notice.
The dispute also reached the Federal High Court, Owerri, through Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/120/2026, in which the Chairman challenged the legality of the October 15 meeting and the resolutions establishing the investigative committee.
The proceedings raised questions concerning the interpretation of the NBA Uniform Bye-Laws for Branches, particularly the provisions governing the requisition and conduct of Extraordinary General Meetings.
A further action was instituted in connection with the notice seeking Udegbulem’s removal, adding to the litigation arising from the dispute.
The court proceedings have not produced a final determination establishing financial misconduct by the Chairman or conclusively resolving the disputed validity of the meetings and investigative arrangements.
Meanwhile, Udegbulem has consistently denied allegations that he misappropriated or diverted any part of the ₦100 million donation.
In his published response to the allegations, he maintained that the money was paid directly into the official bank account of the NBA Owerri Branch on August 24, 2026, and was not received through any personal account.
He explained that the Branch had an existing balance of approximately ₦6.35 million before receiving the government donation, bringing the total available funds to about ₦106.35 million.
According to his account, the Branch spent approximately ₦87.43 million on approved activities and projects, leaving a balance of about ₦18.92 million as of October 15.
The Chairman stated that the expenditures included approximately ₦42.18 million for logistics connected with the NBA Annual General Conference, ₦17.5 million for a solar power installation and ₦5.41 million for air conditioners.
He also listed expenditure on health insurance, computer equipment, a public address system, repairs to the Bar Centre, executive seats and direct welfare support to members.
Udegbulem maintained that the expenditure was supported by bank records, receipts, invoices and other relevant documents.
He expressed willingness to cooperate with a lawful investigation and called for a comprehensive examination of the Branch’s financial records.
A separate allegation concerning approximately ₦22 million allegedly withdrawn through point-of-sale transactions has also featured in the controversy.
However, the allegation has not been independently established, and the Chairman’s published financial account denies improper diversion or personal use of the Branch’s money.
The dispute has therefore remained unresolved despite the Chairman’s explanation, the establishment of investigative committees and the commencement of court proceedings.
The October 31 meeting subsequently generated further complaints from members who alleged that the leadership failed to provide a meaningful opportunity to discuss the outstanding issues.
In a statement dated November 1, Agu accused the Chairman of preventing members critical of his administration from participating freely in the meeting.
He also alleged that persons who were not members of the legal profession had been brought to the venue to disrupt proceedings and intimidate members demanding accountability.
Those allegations have not been independently established.
Agu claimed that several senior lawyers, including Ahamba, Emeka Nwagwu, SAN, Dec Madu and Willie Opara, left the meeting before its conclusion.
He further alleged that the report of the five-member committee chaired by Nworka was not properly presented for consideration by members.
According to him, the report of the NBA President’s three-member committee, which had been expected by October 30, had also not been made available as of November 1.
The current status of the national committee’s report has not been independently established.
The dispute over the conduct of the October meeting subsequently prompted another group of lawyers to initiate a fresh requisition for an Extraordinary General Meeting proposed for November 10, 2026.
Chuks Agbugba, one of those mobilising support for the meeting, maintained that the October 31 gathering had failed to provide members with a proper opportunity to address the issues dividing the Branch.
However, whether the proposed November 10 meeting will be formally convened remains subject to compliance with the NBA Constitution, applicable Branch Bye-Laws and any relevant court orders.
Ahamba’s reported appeal to the national leadership has also renewed attention on the constitutional powers available to the Association to address disputes arising from Branch administration.
A former Second Vice-President of the NBA, Clement Ugo Chukwuemeka, had earlier raised questions about the role of the National Executive Council in resolving the Owerri controversy.
In a statement issued on October 19, he referred to Section 8(6)(g) and (h) of the amended NBA Constitution, which he interpreted as giving the National Executive Council authority concerning disputes arising from Branch administration, including the power to investigate or appoint competent persons to investigate Branch affairs.
Chukwuemeka questioned whether the three-member committee constituted by the NBA President was intended merely as a preliminary fact-finding mechanism or as an investigative process falling within the responsibilities of the National Executive Council.
He argued that if the committee was exercising powers reserved for the Council, the appropriate constitutional procedures concerning its authorisation, supervision and reporting should be followed.
His observations raised the question of whether the continuing crisis required formal consideration by the National Executive Council rather than reliance solely on initiatives at the Branch level.
Ahamba’s reported appeal for national intervention now brings that question into sharper focus.
However, the expression “state of emergency,” attributed to Ahamba, should not be confused with a formally established constitutional procedure for placing an NBA Branch under emergency administration.
Any decision to suspend Branch officers, appoint a caretaker arrangement or otherwise intervene in the administration of the Branch would require a proper legal and constitutional foundation.
Similarly, the expression “National Executive” used in the remarks attributed to Ahamba requires clarification because the NBA operates both a National Executive Council and a National Executive Committee, with distinct constitutional responsibilities.
The question of which organ should intervene, and the extent of its powers, remains central to any proposed national resolution.
Another issue arising from the controversy is the need for the parties to rely on the applicable provisions of the NBA Constitution and the Uniform Bye-Laws for Branches.
Articles 11 and 13 of the Bye-Laws have featured in disagreements over the convening of meetings and the procedure for removing Branch officers.
The interpretation and application of those provisions are also connected with the court proceedings instituted by the Chairman.
The association’s amended constitution and the governing Branch Bye-Laws therefore remain important to resolving the procedural questions raised by members.
Beyond the legal disputes, the continuing controversy has highlighted the importance of obtaining and examining the underlying financial records concerning the government donation.
The Chairman’s published expenditure breakdown provides his account of how the funds were used, but the competing allegations would require examination of relevant bank statements, payment vouchers, receipts and other supporting documents.
Those records would help establish the movement of funds, the nature of the expenditure and whether the relevant approvals were obtained.
For the Branch members who have demanded accountability, the central concern remains whether the ₦100 million was properly received, managed and spent in accordance with the Association’s governing rules.
For Udegbulem, who has denied wrongdoing and challenged the impartiality of some of the investigative arrangements, the dispute also concerns his right to fair treatment and compliance with the procedures prescribed by the NBA Constitution.
Ahamba’s reported walkout, however, raises a separate concern about the capacity of the Branch to conduct meetings where members with opposing views can participate freely and have their complaints considered fairly.
His allegation that the Chairman had already determined whom to recognise and which issues to entertain has not been established as a finding of misconduct.
Udegbulem’s response to those specific remarks was not contained in the material reviewed.
Nevertheless, the intervention illustrates the extent to which confidence in the Branch’s internal dispute-resolution process has deteriorated.
While the financial allegations remain contested, the dispute has expanded into questions about the legitimacy of meetings, the independence of investigative committees, the conduct of Branch officers and the constitutional responsibilities of the Association’s national organs.
The outcome of the pending court proceedings and any further intervention by the NBA national leadership may determine how the Branch addresses those competing claims.
For now, Ahamba’s reported appeal places the responsibility for considering further intervention before the Association’s national leadership, while the underlying financial and procedural disputes remain unresolved.
The circumstances surrounding the ₦100 million expenditure, the allegations concerning the conduct of Branch meetings and the appropriate constitutional mechanism for resolving the crisis remain matters requiring documentary verification, fair hearing and adherence to the rule of law.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
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
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
