By Sylvester Udemezue
For several years now, a troubling concern has been quietly gathering strength within the Nigerian Bar Association. What began as murmurs of discomfort has gradually matured into something far more serious: a widening and deepening loss of confidence by many Nigerian lawyers in the electronic voting system used for NBA national elections. Today, that concern can no longer be dismissed as the complaint of a few disgruntled voices. It has become too persistent, too widespread, and too consequential to ignore.
The NBA now stands at a delicate and defining moment in its institutional history. If urgent and credible steps are not taken to address the growing mistrust surrounding the Association’s electoral process, the consequences may extend far beyond one election cycle. They may affect the credibility of the Association, the legitimacy of its leadership, the unity of its membership, and the moral authority with which it speaks on constitutionalism, democracy, and the rule of law in Nigeria. This intervention is therefore not intended as an attack on any individual, faction, or tendency within the NBA. It is, rather, a constructive warning and a sincere institutional appeal. The time has come for NBA leaders and members alike to confront the issues surrounding the Association’s electoral system with honesty, maturity, courage, and urgency.
(2). The Constitutional Framework And The Deeper Crisis Beneath It.
Under the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association, responsibility for conducting national elections lies with the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA). As has been repeatedly stated within NBA processes, the National Executive Council appoints the chairman and members of the ECNBA on the recommendation of the National Executive Committee. In the communiqué issued after the NBA NEC meeting held in Benin City on 20 November 2025, NEC approved the constitution of the ECNBA for the 2026 national elections and publicly emphasized transparency, technological reliability, and fairness in the electoral process. On paper, that sounds reassuring. In practice, however, formal declarations of transparency are no longer enough.
The deeper problem is that many lawyers do not merely want to be told that the process is transparent; they want to see, verify, and trust that it is transparent. And that is precisely where the crisis lies. The most fundamental concern confronting the NBA today is not zoning, regional politics, candidate preference, or even litigation in itself. The real issue is electronic voting and the opacity many lawyers believe surrounds it. Over the past several election cycles, a growing number of lawyers within the NBA have expressed serious doubts about the transparency, verifiability, and credibility of the electronic voting system used in NBA elections. Many believe the system is too opaque, too insulated from independent scrutiny, and too vulnerable to manipulation in favour of candidates perceived to enjoy the sympathy or backing of the establishment.
Whether every one of these suspicions is ultimately justified is not, at this stage, the most important question. The more urgent problem is that the loss of confidence itself has become real. In every democratic institution, perception matters almost as much as reality. Once a significant portion of the electorate begins to believe that the process is compromised, the legitimacy of the eventual outcome is endangered, even before the first vote is cast.
(3). Repeated Calls For Audit and The Damage Caused By Resistance To Scrutiny
Over time, several lawyers and groups within the NBA have repeatedly called for an independent audit of the electronic voting system. Such an audit would be expected to verify the integrity of the software, the transparency of vote collation, the neutrality of the technical administrators, the security of the infrastructure, and the overall reliability of the process. Yet one of the strongest grievances among many members is that repeated demands for such independent verification have not been meaningfully granted. That refusal, whether motivated by caution, institutional defensiveness, or confidence in the existing process, has had one disastrous consequence: it has deepened suspicion. The question many lawyers continue to ask is both simple and powerful: if the system is truly secure, transparent, and credible, why should an independent audit be resisted? Institutions are strengthened by scrutiny, not weakened by it.
Transparency builds confidence; opacity breeds anxiety. Verification protects legitimacy; resistance to verification undermines it. The NBA leadership should have understood long ago that in a professional body made up of lawyers trained to test evidence, probe procedure, and challenge unsupported claims, mere assurances can never permanently substitute for verifiable credibility. The recent wave of suits and petitions shows that all is no longer well with the NBA. One of the clearest signs that this crisis has reached a dangerous stage is the recent wave of lawsuits and formal petitions challenging the NBA’s electoral process and the conduct of those at the helm of the Association. On 05 March 2026, it was reported that an Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan had restrained members of the ECNBA from performing any function relating to the 2026 national officers’ elections and also restrained the NBA President from taking steps toward the constitution and composition of the ECNBA or interfering in the conduct of the election, pending the determination of the application before the court.
In another development, it was reported that a separate court order restraining the NBA from recognising or processing the nomination of any presidential candidate other than the consensus candidate of Egbe Amofin O’odua for the 2026 presidency, pending determination of the suit before the court. And before all these, there were reports that Aare Muyiwa Akinboro, SAN, and Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, SAN, had petitioned the Board of Trustees of the NBA, demanding the resignation of the NBA President, Afam Osigwe, SAN, over what they described as alleged electoral bias and partisan conduct ahead of the elections. These reports, taken together, reveal something much more serious than routine disagreement. They are not isolated flashes of controversy. They are evidence of cracks, strain, and spreading disaffection within the Bar. They point to a troubling atmosphere of distrust, disappointment, suspicion, and disenchantment regarding the NBA’s internal democratic process. When lawyers increasingly go to court against their own professional Association over internal elections, when election-related court orders begin to halt or distort the electoral timetable, and when senior members petition for the resignation of the President over alleged bias, it becomes impossible to keep pretending that all is well.
The REALITY is that all is not well. And something urgent must be done. These developments are symptoms of a deeper institutional anxiety. The lawsuits themselves are not the heart of the problem. They are symptoms. The petitions are not the disease. They are warning signs. The court orders are not the crisis in themselves. They are evidence that the crisis has matured. At bottom, what these developments signify is a deeper institutional anxiety about transparency, fairness, neutrality, and trust. Courts ought ordinarily to be the last resort in disputes touching the internal democratic processes of a professional body like the NBA. The fact that multiple lawyers now appear to regard litigation as the available pathway for challenging perceived irregularities suggests that confidence in internal corrective mechanisms has been badly eroded. The frequency and intensity of recent disputes also suggest that the dissatisfaction is not limited to one camp, one aspirant, one region, or one ideology. It reflects a wider atmosphere of distrust. And at the center of that distrust lies one major grievance: the opacity of the electronic voting system and the persistent refusal to subject it to credible, independent audit. This is why it is mistaken to treat the current turbulence as merely another chapter in NBA politics. It is bigger than politics. It is about institutional confidence. It is about whether members still believe the system through which their leaders emerge is worthy of trust.
The issue is not who wins; the issue is whether members trust the process. Every election produces winners and losers. That is normal. What is dangerous is when the legitimacy of the process itself becomes the real casualty. The central issue here is not whether any particular candidate is good, bad, popular, or establishment-backed. It is not whether any region feels entitled or excluded. It is not whether one camp is more aggrieved than another. The fundamental issue is whether NBA members have confidence that the process by which votes are cast, counted, collated, and declared is genuinely transparent and beyond manipulation. An electoral system need not be actually rigged before it becomes institutionally destructive. Once it is widely perceived as untrustworthy, its damage has already begun. A leadership produced by a process many members do not trust may still occupy office, but it will govern under a cloud. Its legitimacy will be doubted. Its authority will be fragile. Its pronouncements may command office but not respect. And once that stage is reached, every future election will be approached with deeper cynicism and sharper conflict. That is why the problem must be addressed now, before suspicion hardens into permanent institutional culture, and before irreparable damage is done.
(4). NBA’s Moral Authority Is At Stake
The Nigerian Bar Association is not just another private club. It is the voice of the legal profession in Nigeria. It routinely defends constitutionalism, criticises electoral fraud, demands accountability from public institutions, and insists on due process, transparency, and the rule of law. But an institution that demands accountability from governments must itself demonstrate accountability in its own internal processes. An institution that speaks loudly about credible elections in the larger society must ensure that its own elections inspire confidence among its own members. If the NBA itself cannot run elections that many of its members trust, then its moral standing to lecture the nation on electoral integrity is weakened. This is why the current issue is not merely procedural. It is existential. NBA’s authority in national life has never depended on coercive power. It has depended on moral credibility. That credibility is one of its greatest assets. If it is squandered through avoidable opacity and needless resistance to reform, the loss will be historic.
(5). Responsibility Is Collective
It would be too easy, and indeed too lazy, to heap all blame on one person or one office. The present crisis has many contributors. Successive NBA leaderships must bear responsibility for failing to address the deepening trust deficit around the electoral system and for not taking sufficiently bold steps to restore confidence through independent verification and transparent reform. Those who rushed to litigation, though perhaps motivated by real grievances, must also reflect on whether earlier, stronger institutional advocacy for reform might have better served the long-term health of the Association. Defendants and other actors whose conduct has deepened controversy must equally bear their share of responsibility. Counsel involved in election-related disputes should ask themselves whether they are helping to heal the Association or merely prosecuting factional causes under the cover of legal representation. And the wider NBA membership cannot be completely absolved. Too many members have remained passive spectators while the Association’s democratic credibility steadily weakens. Institutional decay is often enabled not only by the actions of the powerful, but also by the silence of the many. In truth, responsibility is collective. We all share the burden of this moment.
(6). If the NBA Fails To Reform Now, the Consequences May Be Historic, Catastrophic
Institutions do not collapse in a single day. They weaken gradually, first through silence, then through denial, then through rationalisation, and finally through loss of confidence by those they are meant to serve. The NBA must understand that the current distrust surrounding its electoral system is not a minor quarrel. It is a serious institutional warning signal. When more and more lawyers begin to question the credibility of the process through which leaders emerge, the legitimacy of those leaders becomes vulnerable. Once legitimacy is questioned, authority becomes fragile. Once authority becomes fragile, internal cohesion begins to fray. If confidence in the NBA electoral system continues to decline, the consequences could indeed be both historic and catastrophic. Future NBA elections may become permanently contested. Internal divisions within the Bar may deepen. Members may gradually disengage from the Association’s democratic processes. NBA’s public interventions on national governance may lose persuasive force because critics will point to unresolved credibility problems within the Association itself. None of these outcomes would benefit the Nigerian legal profession. But there is still time to act. Reform is not a confession of guilt. Reform is not weakness. Reform is the mark of institutions that possess the wisdom, humility, and foresight to change in order to endure.
(7). What The NBA Must Do Now
NBA leadership should urgently initiate a process of genuine electoral reform to address the concerns of members. The first and most obvious step is to commission a full independent audit of the electronic voting system by a credible and respected external technology and audit team. The scope of that review should cover software integrity, system security, vote collation, administrator controls, audit trails, and verifiability mechanisms. The outcome should not be treated as secret internal information. It should be communicated in a manner capable of reassuring members. Second, NBA should be prepared, if necessary, to undertake constitutional reform through an emergency Annual General Meeting or other lawful constitutional mechanism, in order to revisit the current electoral framework and make whatever changes are necessary to restore confidence.
Third, if electronic voting is to remain, the system must be redesigned or strengthened in a manner that allows verifiable transparency without compromising ballot secrecy. Lawyers must not be asked to simply trust what they cannot independently interrogate. Fourth, NBA should consider establishing an NBA Leadership Academy or comparable institutional platform through which prospective candidates and future office holders receive grounding in the Association’s constitutional culture, leadership ethics, institutional history, conflict management, and democratic responsibilities. Electoral reform alone will not save the NBA if leadership culture remains shallow. Fifth, the Association must open a sincere, broad, and non-defensive dialogue with members, especially aggrieved members and stakeholders. Trust cannot be restored by communiqués, public statements and press releases alone. Members need to feel heard, respected, and taken seriously.
(8). A Wake-up Call, Not A Death Sentence
This moment, though dangerous, is not hopeless. The current turbulence can still become the turning point that leads to the most important institutional reform in the modern history of the Nigerian Bar Association. But that can happen only if the NBA leadership and the wider membership choose to treat the present developments not as ordinary controversies to be managed away, but as a wake-up call demanding statesmanship. The recent lawsuits and petitions should not be brushed aside as routine pre-election skirmishes. They should be read for what they are: evidence of spreading distrust. Evidence of real cracks. Evidence that many lawyers are no longer fully persuaded that the present electoral framework commands confidence. That is why the warning must be sounded clearly and loudly now.NBA must act fast. It must act sincerely. And it must act in a manner capable of restoring trust.
(9). Conclusion
The Nigerian Bar Association stands today at a crossroads. One path leads to reform, transparency, restored confidence, and stronger institutional legitimacy. The other leads to deeper suspicion, repeated litigation, chronic electoral disputes, weakened authority, and possible long-term damage to the fabric and standing of the Bar in national life. The choice should not be difficult. The NBA still possesses enormous potential. It remains one of the most influential professional institutions in Africa. It can still recover, reform, and emerge stronger. But such recovery will not come through denial. It will not come through public relations. It will not come by dismissing critics or aggrieved members as troublemakers, wailers, or haters. It will come only through honest reform and verifiable transparency.
The growing distrust surrounding the electronic voting system is a dangerous fault line running through the Association; if ignored, it may one day erupt into a crisis far more damaging than the disputes now visible. History will judge how the present leadership responds to this moment. In the end, as we often say in Nigeria, “I have said my own.” Those who have ears should hear. Yet experience shows that our problem is rarely the absence of ears; it is often our reluctance to use them. Perhaps this is why Craig D. Lounsbrough once asked,: “Do we forget, or is it that we simply refuse to remember?” Some may not be comfortable with the concerns raised in this article. That is understandable. But disagreement should never prevent us from confronting reality with honesty and courage. As Beverly Sills observed, it is not always important that everyone loves the message; what matters more is the sincerity with which it is offered. My opinion is presented in that spirit. As Anne Tyler noted, it is very difficult to live among people you love and hold back from offering them advice.
Many of us cherish the Nigerian Bar Association deeply, and it is precisely because of that affection that these warning alerts are offered. My humble appeal to NBA leaders and members alike is simple: never reject good advice; wisdom often begins with the willingness to listen. When one sees good advice, one should not only listen to it, but should also thoughtfully consider it. Ultimately, we must confront a fundamental truth: one may succeed in avoiding reality for a time, but no one can avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. The future strength, credibility, and moral authority of the Nigerian Bar Association will depend on how courageously it confronts the realities before it today.
The time to act is now!
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (udems),
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
(14 March 2026)
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
