One hundred and eighty-three financial members of the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri Branch, have requisitioned an extraordinary general meeting of the branch to consider the crisis arising from the controversy over the 100 million naira received from the Imo State Government.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The requisition, dated 2 October 2026 and addressed to the Branch Chairman, Dr. Mazi Udegbulem, is brought pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Uniform Bye-Law for Branches. It carries the acknowledgement stamp of the branch, signed by the Branch Administrative Secretary, Ms. Dorcas Onyemechara, and dated the same day.
“We, the financial members of the Nigerian Bar Association, Owerri Branch, whose names, Supreme Court Enrolment numbers and signatures are contained in the attached Google forms, hereby requisition an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Branch pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Uniform Bye-Law for Branches,” the document states.
“This requisition has received the endorsement of 183 financial members of the Branch, whose particulars and consents are attached hereto.”
The meeting is requisitioned for Saturday, 10 October 2026 at 2 p.m. at the NBA Bar Centre, Owerri, “to consider the current crisis in the Branch arising from the controversy surrounding the N100,000,000.00 received from the Imo State Government, and to chart an appropriate way forward, including the consideration and adoption of such resolutions as members may deem necessary in the circumstances.”
“You are accordingly requested to direct the Branch Secretary to summon the Extraordinary General Meeting in accordance with Article 11(4) of the Uniform Bye-Law,” it states.
The requisition is signed by Mr. Chinedu Agu, “for myself and the other requisitioning members,” is copied to the Branch Secretary, and attaches a list of the 183 financial members supporting it.
In a statement issued after the submission, the requisitioning members said the document was formally submitted to the Chairman at 8.40 a.m.
“We sought only 25 names in support of the requisition,” the statement said. “Remarkably, within the brief 22-hour window, we received an overwhelming 183 submissions.”
“Having fulfilled the requirements of the law, we now look forward to the Chairman directing the Branch Secretary to issue the necessary notice and convene the meeting accordingly.”
“The members have spoken. The process must now take its lawful course.”
The controversy concerns the 100 million naira released to the branch by the Imo State Government on 24 August 2026, which formed part of a reported wider intervention distributed among the six branches of the association in the state ahead of the Annual General Conference.
At the branch’s general meeting of 26 September, the Chairman is reported to have disclosed that 81,910,000 naira of the sum had been expended on projects and activities, including works at the Bar Centre, conference logistics, air conditioning, a sound system, chairs, enrolment of members in the National Health Insurance Scheme and repairs to the branch bus.
On 28 September the Branch Executive Committee constituted a five-member investigative committee chaired by Chief Soronnadi Njoku, SAN, following a resolution of the general meeting and a directive from the Attorney-General of Imo State. A written motion for the Chairman’s removal under Article 13(6) of the Uniform Bye-Law, signed by five financial members, was submitted to the Branch Secretary the same day, alongside requests for the branch’s bank statements and vouchers and for the recording of the 26 September meeting. On 30 September a petition was lodged with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission at its Awka Zonal Directorate.
The branch has previously stated that nothing presently available establishes that the money was diverted for the personal benefit of the Chairman or of any other individual, and that the allegations concern how the funds were applied and how the expenditure was authorised.
The requisition is the fifth process now running on the same subject, and it is the one with the clearest constitutional footing within the association.
Article 11(4) of the Uniform Bye-Law allows financial members to compel the convening of a meeting. The requisitioning members say the threshold is 25 and that they obtained 183 in 22 hours, which is seven times the requirement. Whatever view is taken of the merits, that is a significant number for a branch meeting, and it changes the character of the dispute: what began as a motion by five members and a series of individual letters is now a demand supported by a large body of the membership. A chairman faced with a requisition meeting the stated threshold has little room to decline, and the request is correctly framed, asking him to direct the Secretary rather than purporting to convene the meeting himself.
The date, however, raises a question which the requisitioning members may have anticipated. The written motion for the Chairman’s removal was submitted on 28 September, and Article 13(6) requires such a motion to reach the Branch Secretary at least 21 days before the general meeting at which it is to be tabled, with 14 days’ written notice to the officer concerned under Article 13(7). Counting from 28 September, the earliest date on which that motion can properly be considered falls in the second half of October. A meeting held on 10 October would be 12 days after submission, and could not lawfully take the removal motion.
The wording of the requisition appears to recognise that. Its stated purpose is to consider the crisis arising from the controversy over the funds and to chart a way forward, “including the consideration and adoption of such resolutions as members may deem necessary.” It does not name the removal motion. On that reading the extraordinary meeting is a forum for the membership to take stock, give directions to the investigative committee, and resolve what it wishes about the accounts, with the removal question left to a properly constituted meeting later in the month.
That distinction will matter on the day. If the meeting of 10 October were to purport to remove the Chairman, it would reproduce precisely the defect identified after the 26 September meeting, when it was pointed out publicly that a motion moved from the floor did not satisfy Article 13. The requisitioning members have been careful on procedure so far, and the value of that care lies in not abandoning it under the pressure of a full hall.
One practical observation about the method. The signatures and Supreme Court enrolment numbers were gathered through online forms, which is how a requisition of this size was assembled overnight. That is sensible and probably unavoidable at that speed, but it also means the branch is entitled to verify that each signatory is a financial member in good standing, which is the one ground on which the numbers could be contested. The requisitioners have attached the particulars and consents, which is the right way to make that verification possible rather than to resist it.
[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
