A group of six Nigerian lawyers, suing under the banner of the Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom, have filed an originating summons at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory challenging the Nigerian Bar Association’s introduction of a “Digital Practising Licence,” “Annual Practising List,” and “CPD Compliance List,” arguing that the notice implementing these measures was issued in disobedience of a subsisting Federal High Court judgment that declared the sanctions under the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development Rules null and void, and during the pendency of another suit on the same subject matter before a different Federal High Court judge.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The suit, filed by Moronike Adizat Oladoyin, Ndamzi Ogbonda Ekwulo, Edeki Friday Jomani, Stephen Danjuma Ziri, Clive Eyimearelu Otaigbe, and Christabel Zoe Ayuk, names the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association as first defendant, NBA President Mazi Afam Osigwe SAN as second defendant, and NBA General Secretary Dr. Mobolaji Ojibara as third defendant.
The claimants, who describe themselves as members of an unincorporated association of Nigerian lawyers known as ABLIF, are seeking declarations that the NBA’s April 14, 2026, notice introducing the digital licensing regime is improper, unlawful, and constitutes an abuse of court process, as well as a perpetual injunction restraining the NBA from implementing the notice or any similar measure until the pending suit before Justice B.F.M. Nyako of the Federal High Court is determined.
The originating summons is anchored on two existing judicial proceedings that the claimants argue should have prevented the NBA from issuing the April 14 notice.
The first is the judgment of the Federal High Court delivered on January 27, 2026, by Justice M.G. Umar in Victor Ozioma Nwadike v. Nigerian Bar Association & 2 Others, Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1238/2025.
In that judgment, which has not been set aside by any appellate court or any court of competent jurisdiction, Justice Umar held that the provisions of the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development Rules 2025, which were made pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct 2023, are subsidiary legislation that “cannot override the Legal Practitioners Act.”
The court specifically held: “The provisions of the RPC 2023 and MCPD Rules 2025 which tend to add or alter the requirement to entitlement to practice law by a Legal Practitioner in Nigeria cannot be sustained. Any provision in the said MCPD Rules 2025 which tends to add to or alter the Legal Practitioners Act as regards to the right of audience of a lawyer before any Court in Nigeria is hereby declared null and void to the extent of its inconsistency.”
The court also noted the specific sanctions that raised concern: “The sanction that comes with the MCPD Rules 2025 to a Legal Practitioner who did not meet the minimum requirements of the 5 credit hours within the year is what raises concern. The sanctions are: denial of licence to practice law, loss of the NBA Seal, barring from Court and public listing.”
The claimants argue that this judgment, which remains binding and unchallenged, effectively prohibits the NBA from implementing any licensing regime that ties practising rights to CPD compliance, and that the introduction of a “Digital Practising Licence” and “CPD Compliance List” on April 14 directly contravenes this ruling.
The second proceeding is Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2241/2025, Christabel Zoe Ayuk & 11 Others v. Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association & 4 Others, pending before Justice B.F.M. Nyako of the Federal High Court. Christabel Zoe Ayuk, who is both a claimant in the pending Federal High Court suit and the sixth claimant and deponent in the current FCT High Court suit, is the National Secretary of ABLIF.
The pending suit deals directly with the legality of the NBA’s issuance of practising licences and CPD-related requirements as they concern Nigerian legal practitioners. Because the suit is pending and has not been determined, the claimants argue the NBA cannot take steps that affect the subject matter of the litigation without overreaching the court and undermining the judicial process.
The claimants’ written address, filed alongside the originating summons, advances two interconnected legal arguments.
First, the claimants invoke Section 287(3) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that decisions of the Federal High Court “shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons.” They argue that the Nwadike judgment, which declared the MCPD sanctions null and void, is binding on the NBA and must be obeyed until set aside by an appellate court.
They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kanawa v. INEC (2022), which affirmed that all authorities and persons are bound to enforce Federal High Court decisions.
The claimants argue that the NBA’s issuance of a notice introducing a “Digital Practising Licence” and “CPD Compliance List” after the Federal High Court had declared CPD-related sanctions null and void constitutes a direct disobedience of a binding judgment.
Second, the claimants invoke the doctrine of lis pendens, the legal principle that prohibits parties from taking actions that affect the subject matter of pending litigation. They cite multiple Supreme Court authorities to support their position.
In Haruna v. KSHA (2010), the Supreme Court held that “the law does not allow litigants or parties during the pendency of any litigation involving any property or rights in such property to interfere with such property or rights so as to prejudice any of the litigating parties.”
In Oyewo v. Shekoni (2023), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens “prevents the effective transfer of rights in any property which is the subject matter of an action pending in court during the pendency of the action.”
In Anyaoha v. Obioha (2014), the Supreme Court held that “once parties have turned their dispute over to the courts for adjudication, they should respect the court and await the determination of the adjudication and not resort to self-help in dealing with the subject matter of litigation.”
Most pointedly, the claimants cited Registered Trustees, Apostolic Church v. Olowoleni (1990), where the Supreme Court held: “Once they submitted the dispute to the court, they ought to have done nothing which gave the impression that they were trying to pre-empt the decision of the court. To have done so amounted to lawlessness. And an act of lawlessness is no less serious because it was perpetrated by an organisation and not by the State.”
The application of this last authority to the NBA is deliberate and striking. The Supreme Court’s statement that “an act of lawlessness is no less serious because it was perpetrated by an organisation” directly addresses the NBA’s status as a professional body rather than a state institution, arguing that private organisations are equally bound to respect pending court proceedings and subsisting judgments.
The affidavit in support of the summons discloses that before filing the suit, the claimants gave the NBA “the benefit of the doubt” by writing to the defendants and giving them “not less than 48 hours to withdraw the said purported Notice.”
The NBA “refused, rejected and neglected to withdraw the Notice,” which the claimants state “necessitated this Suit.”
The disclosure serves two purposes. It demonstrates that the claimants attempted to resolve the matter without litigation, countering any argument that the suit was premature or unnecessary. And it establishes that the NBA was put on notice of the potential legal consequences of the April 14 notice and chose to proceed regardless.
The claimants are seeking six specific reliefs.
First, a declaration that the defendants are bound to refrain from issuing the notice or taking any step affecting the subject matter of the Nwadike judgment and the pending Ayuk suit.
Second, a declaration that the April 14 notice constitutes an attempt to conflict with and disrespect the Federal High Court judgment and to overreach the court in the pending suit and “foist a fait accompli on the pending proceedings.”
Third, a declaration that the April 14 notice is “improper, unlawful and constitutes an abuse of court process.”
Fourth, an order setting aside the April 14 notice.
Fifth, a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from issuing, implementing, or acting upon the notice or any similar notice touching on the subject matter of the Nwadike judgment and the Ayuk suit pending the determination of the latter.
Sixth, any further orders the court may deem fit.
Anticipating a potential objection that the suit duplicates the pending Ayuk case before Justice Nyako, the claimants’ counsel, Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq. of The Vicegerent Legal Consult in Bwari, explicitly addressed the point in the written address.
“My Lord, the Claimants are not inviting this Honourable Court to determine the substantive legality or otherwise of the Nigerian Bar Association’s Digital Practising Licence, Mandatory Continuing Professional Development regime, or any regulatory framework governing legal practice in Nigeria. Those issues are already pending before the Federal High Court,” counsel stated.
“Rather, this suit is anchored on a distinct cause of action, namely whether the Defendants, in the face of a subsisting and unchallenged judgment and a pending suit on the same subject matter, can validly issue and implement a notice touching on that same subject matter without overreaching the Court and undermining the judicial process,” the written address stated.
The distinction is between the substantive question of whether the NBA can lawfully tie practising rights to CPD compliance, which is before the Federal High Court, and the procedural question of whether the NBA can implement such a regime while the substantive question is pending, which is the subject of the current suit.
The suit arises from the NBA’s April 14, 2026, notice to all Nigerian legal practitioners introducing three new features: a Digital Practising Licence, an Annual Practising List, and a CPD Compliance List.
The claimants argue that these measures are directly connected to the MCPD Rules 2025 that the Federal High Court declared null and void in the Nwadike judgment, and that implementing them while the Ayuk suit challenging the broader licensing regime is pending before Justice Nyako constitutes an attempt to “foist a fait accompli” on the court by establishing the digital licensing regime as an operational reality before the court can rule on its legality.
The suit forms part of a broader struggle within the Nigerian legal profession over the NBA’s authority to impose conditions on practising rights beyond those prescribed by the Legal Practitioners Act.
The Federal High Court’s Nwadike judgment established the principle that the Legal Practitioners Act is the primary legislation governing the right to practise law in Nigeria, and that subsidiary legislation such as the Rules of Professional Conduct and the MCPD Rules cannot “add to or alter” the requirements set by the Act. Any sanction that denies a lawyer the right to practise based on CPD non-compliance goes beyond what the Act prescribes and is therefore null and void.
The NBA, under President Osigwe’s leadership, has been pursuing a modernisation agenda that includes digital licensing, CPD compliance tracking, and enhanced regulatory oversight of practitioners. The April 14 notice was part of this agenda.
The tension between the NBA’s regulatory aspirations and the legal constraints imposed by the Legal Practitioners Act and the courts is at the heart of the dispute. The claimants argue the NBA cannot pursue regulatory reforms that have been declared unlawful by a court merely because it disagrees with the judgment. The proper course, they argue, is to appeal the Nwadike judgment and obtain a stay of execution, not to proceed as if the judgment does not exist.
This suit adds to the growing pile of legal challenges facing the Osigwe-led NBA, including the ECNBA composition dispute, the Egbe Amofin suit now at the Court of Appeal, the Okutepa-Osigwe controversy, and Chief Alliyu SAN’s public critique of the president’s leadership.
For the thousands of Nigerian lawyers who received the April 14 notice and are uncertain about their obligations, the suit raises a fundamental question: is the NBA bound by the Federal High Court’s judgment declaring CPD sanctions null and void, or can it proceed to implement a digital licensing regime that effectively achieves the same result under a different name?
The FCT High Court will provide the answer.
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
