The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN, has issued a sweeping presidential directive to all NBA branches recognising virtual and hybrid meeting attendance as valid for all purposes under the NBA Constitution, including electoral qualification for branch elections, and prohibiting the disqualification, disenfranchisement, or exclusion of any member from contesting or participating in branch elections solely on the ground that the member attended meetings virtually rather than physically.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The directive, dated May 29, 2026, and issued pursuant to Section 9(5)(a)(iii) of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association 2015 (as amended in 2025) which empowers the President to direct and coordinate the activities of all branches, takes effect immediately and orders all branches to review their electoral guidelines, policies, practices, and procedures to ensure conformity with its provisions.
The directive represents a decisive intervention by the NBA President in the controversy that erupted following the Branch Elections Appeals Committee (North) decision of May 16, 2026, which had ruled that only physical attendance at branch meetings counted towards electoral eligibility, leading to the disqualification of at least four aspirants across the Garki, Gwagwalada, Yola, and Kano branches and sparking fierce debate among lawyers over the NBA’s approach to technology and virtual participation.
The Five Provisions
The directive is structured around five substantive provisions that collectively establish a comprehensive framework for the recognition of virtual participation in NBA branch affairs.
First: Recognition of Physical, Virtual, and Hybrid Participation
The directive states that the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association “expressly recognises attendance at meetings through physical presence, virtual participation by designated electronic means, or a hybrid combination of both.”
Osigwe directed that no branch shall interpret the Constitution as restricting participation in branch activities exclusively to physical attendance where the branch permits, adopts, or recognises virtual or hybrid meetings as part of its operations.
“For the avoidance of doubt, attendance at duly convened meetings through approved virtual platforms shall constitute valid attendance for all purposes recognised by the Constitution, Branch Bye-Laws, and Branch administrative processes,” the directive states.
This provision directly contradicts the Appeals Committee’s holding that “only the physical attendance register maintained by the Branch Secretary constitutes the valid and recognised record of attendance for electoral qualification purposes” and its rejection of online attendance lists as “unsigned, unauthenticated, and lacking verifiable membership details.”
Second: Prohibition of Disenfranchisement Based on Non-Physical Attendance
The directive’s second provision specifically prohibits what happened to the four aspirants disqualified by the Appeals Committee. It states that any branch that recognises, permits, or conducts meetings through virtual or hybrid means “shall accord equal recognition to members who participate through such approved platforms.”
“Consequently, no member shall be disqualified, disenfranchised, denied voting rights, or excluded from contesting or participating in any Branch election solely on the ground that the member attended meetings virtually rather than physically, provided that such participation is verifiable through attendance records maintained by the Branch,” the directive declares.
The provision contains a critical qualification: the virtual attendance must be “verifiable through attendance records maintained by the Branch.” This means that while virtual attendance is now recognised, branches must maintain proper electronic attendance records that can verify virtual participation, not merely informal logs, WhatsApp screenshots, or unsupported claims of online presence.
Osigwe then addressed the contradiction that had been at the heart of the controversy: “Any rule, guideline, policy, practice, or interpretation that recognises virtual attendance for meeting purposes but denies similar recognition in determining electoral qualification shall be inconsistent with the principles of fairness, inclusiveness, equal participation, and the spirit of the Constitution.”
This language directly targets the situation identified by critics of the Appeals Committee decision, where branches that had adopted hybrid meetings and counted virtual attendance for quorum and minute-adoption purposes were simultaneously denying that same virtual attendance for electoral qualification purposes.
Third: Adoption of Technology in Branch Administration
The directive encourages all branches to take “practical, progressive steps towards adopting and utilising technology in the administration of Branch affairs and electoral processes.”
The specific measures recommended include the conduct of meetings through approved virtual or hybrid platforms, the maintenance of accurate electronic attendance records, the electronic dissemination of notices, agendas, reports, electoral information, and other official communications, the development and maintenance of reliable digital membership databases, and the deployment of secure technological solutions that promote transparency, accountability, accessibility, and increased participation by members.
“Branches are reminded that the legal profession continues to evolve in response to technological innovation and changing professional realities. The administration of Branch affairs should therefore reflect contemporary best practices while remaining consistent with the Constitution of the Association,” the directive states.
Fourth: Review of Branch Electoral Guidelines
The directive orders all branches to review their electoral guidelines, policies, practices, and procedures to ensure conformity with the directive and the NBA Constitution.
“Where any existing Branch guideline, regulation, or practice is inconsistent with the provisions of this Directive, such guideline, regulation, or practice shall be amended accordingly,” Osigwe directed.
This provision effectively requires every branch that currently restricts electoral qualification to physical attendance to amend its guidelines to recognise virtual attendance, bringing all 125 NBA branches into alignment with the presidential directive.
Fifth: Compliance
The directive requires all Branch Chairmen, Secretaries, Executive Committees, Electoral Committees, and other officers responsible for the administration of branch affairs to ensure full compliance as provided under Section 9(5)(a)(iii) of the Constitution.
“Any complaint, petition, or dispute arising from non-compliance with this Directive may be referred to the appropriate organs of the Association for consideration and such action as may be necessary,” the directive warns.
The compliance provision carries an implied enforcement mechanism: branches that fail to comply with the directive risk having complaints referred against their officers to the NBA’s disciplinary or administrative organs.
Immediate Effect
The directive concludes with the emphatic statement: “This Directive shall take effect immediately.”
The immediate effect clause means the directive applies to all branch elections currently in process, including those where aspirants have already been disqualified on the basis of insufficient physical attendance. The practical question of whether the disqualified aspirants in the Garki, Gwagwalada, Yola, and Kano branches can now be restored to the ballot on the strength of the presidential directive, despite the Appeals Committee having already ruled against them, is likely to become the next flashpoint in this evolving controversy.
The Context: From “Our Hands Are Tied” to Presidential Directive
The directive represents a significant shift from the position the NBA President was reported to have taken at the recently concluded National Executive Council (NEC) meeting in Awka, where Osigwe reportedly told members that the NBA leadership’s “hands were tied” because the Constitution does not give the leadership any oversight role over appeal committees.
That earlier statement had been interpreted by many lawyers as an indication that the NBA President could not or would not intervene in the virtual attendance dispute. The directive issued today suggests that while Osigwe may not have the power to overrule the Appeals Committee’s specific decisions, he has used his broader constitutional authority to direct and coordinate branch activities to establish a policy framework that prevents the same type of disqualification from occurring going forward and that contradicts the Appeals Committee’s interpretation of the Bye-Laws.
The distinction is important: the directive does not purport to overrule the Appeals Committee’s decisions in the specific cases of Rosemary Ogechi Ogazi, Chekwube Osita Ebubealor, Babatunde Moses Tijani, and Oluwaseyi Adedeji Arowosebe. Rather, it establishes a prospective rule that applies to all branches and all future electoral processes, making it clear that virtual attendance shall be recognised and that no member shall be disqualified for attending meetings virtually.
Whether the disqualified aspirants can use the directive as a basis for seeking the reversal of the Appeals Committee’s decisions, or whether the directive applies only prospectively, is a question that may itself require interpretation.
The Legal Authority
The directive is issued pursuant to Section 9(5)(a)(iii) of the NBA Constitution 2015 (as amended in 2025), which empowers the President of the Association to “direct and coordinate the activities of all Branches of the Association.”
This is a broad constitutional power that enables the President to issue binding directives on matters affecting branch operations, including electoral processes, meeting procedures, and administrative practices. The directive’s reliance on this provision positions it as a binding instruction from the highest officer of the Association, not merely advisory guidance.
The question of whether a presidential directive issued under Section 9(5)(a)(iii) can effectively override or supersede a decision of the Branch Elections Appeals Committee, which derives its own authority from a different provision of the Constitution, may generate further legal debate within the profession.
What Lawyers Had Been Saying
The directive directly addresses the concerns raised by numerous lawyers in the days following the Appeals Committee’s decision.
Lawyers had pointed out the contradiction of the NBA rejecting virtual attendance for branch elections while Nigerian courts accept virtual appearances, the Federal High Court embraces e-filing, the Court of Appeal delivers judgments remotely, and the NBA’s own Continuing Legal Education programme runs largely online.
Others had highlighted the position of lawyers in the diaspora who pay Bar Practising Fees online, vote in NBA elections online, and attend CLE programmes online, arguing that the NBA “cannot accept virtual money and reject virtual participation.”
The directive also aligns with the NBA President’s own previously stated position on virtual offices for lawyers, where Osigwe acknowledged the reality that many newly called lawyers are practising from home, appearing in courts remotely, and serving clients without physical premises.
The Practical Impact
The directive’s practical impact extends across all 125 NBA branches nationwide and affects every branch election currently scheduled or in progress.
For branches that already conduct hybrid meetings and maintain electronic attendance records, the directive provides clear authority for treating virtual attendance as equivalent to physical attendance for electoral qualification purposes.
For branches that have relied exclusively on physical attendance registers, the directive requires them to review their guidelines and establish mechanisms for recording and verifying virtual attendance.
For aspirants who have been disqualified on the basis of insufficient physical attendance, the directive creates a potential basis for challenging those disqualifications, though the procedural mechanism for doing so remains to be clarified.
For Branch Electoral Committees, the directive establishes a clear standard: if the branch recognises virtual meetings, it must recognise virtual attendance for all purposes, including electoral qualification.
The directive was signed by Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, President of the Nigerian Bar Association, and issued from the NBA National Secretariat at Plot 1102, Muhammed Buhari Way, Cadastral Zone A00, Central Business District, Abuja.
As an added bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE ebook titled: “AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion: A Research Guide.”
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
______________________________________________________________________
“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
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
“Order Your Copy Now” — Basil Momodu, Esq. Unveils Second Edition Of His Book, "Civil Procedure In Nigeria"
According to the learned author, Basil Momodu Esq. "Law review is a continuum. We will continue to track changes in the law to enrich future editions." Recommended Booksellers: Lagos: 08033855230, Abuja: 08035991379, and others.
