By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

The ritual of the “Call to Bar” is the formal ceremony for the admission of new entrants into Nigeria’s legal profession. The responsibility for administering it resides in the Body of Benchers (BoB), a statutory entity described by law as “a body of legal practitioners of the highest distinction in the legal profession in Nigeria.”

The solemnity of the Call to Bar is guaranteed by the presence of members of the BoB who administer the ceremony resplendent in ceremonial gowns supposed to testify to their high distinction in matters legal. The criteria for the determination of this threshold requirement of “highest distinction” antecedent to membership of the BoB are, however, opaque.

The ceremony itself is usually an occasion for members of the Body of Benchers to remind the new entrants of the obligations that come with their new status. It should go without saying that the members of the BoB should themselves embody those values through their own records and example. It should be no surprise that, in Nigeria, this is not usually the case.

There are three categories of membership of the BoB. Membership can exceptionally be honorific, a mostly vacuous conferment reserved for political or diplomatic occasions. Separately, there is ordinary membership attained through high office in public service as judges or Attorneys-General or as leaders or nominees of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Such membership these days also extends to the chairpersons of the judiciary committees of the two chambers of the National Assembly as well as to principal officers of the National Assembly who are lawyers. Members who are conscientious in attending meetings and official dinners of the BoB over a period of four years may be conferred the status of Life Benchers. That is the stuff of high distinction.

The most recent Call to Bar ceremony occurred in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory, over three days from 23 to 25 September 2025. Away from the cameras, on 24 September, something happened which speaks to the existential – even terminal – crisis of values, leadership and responsibility that currently afflicts the governance of Nigeria’s legal profession. At the insistence of certain members of the BoB, one of the members elevated to the status of Life Bencher only in January 2025, Chief Mike Ozekhome, was prevailed upon to quietly withdraw from participating in the process of admitting the new entrants into the profession.

The reason given by the objecting members of the BoB was a judgment delivered a mere six weeks earlier on 11 September 2025 in his ultimately unsuccessful application for registration of title in real estate before a property registration tribunal in England, in which the presiding judge shredded Ozekhome’s testimony as “an invention and contrivance.” According to Gideon Christian, a law professor at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, “this case illustrates how corruption operates [in Nigeria]: politicians hide wealth abroad under false identities, while lawyers – sworn to uphold the law – serve as enablers of fraud.” 

The most significant thing about the enforced withdrawal of Chief Ozekhome from the Call to Bar ceremonies last month is not that it occurred. It is that the BoB went out of its way to ensure that it was a well-guarded secret. It is relevant here that in addition to its role in admitting new entrants into the vocation of the law in Nigeria, the BoB also hosts the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the statutory body charged with enforcing consequences for ethical lapses in Nigeria’s legal profession. When it encounters cases affecting senior lawyers, however, the BoB seems to lapse into a habit of no consequence.

On 10 December 2021, the Supreme Court of Nigeria determined that Michael Aondoakaa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, (SAN), and former Attorney-General of the Federation (HAGF), “had, by his conduct, undermined and subverted the administration of justice and the independence, authority and integrity of the judiciary” and “ought not to be entrusted with any other public office at all.” In effect, the Supreme Court barred Mr. Aondoakaa from public office again in Nigeria. The antecedents of this decision were staggering.

Ahead of Nigeria’s 2007 general elections, political parties organized processes in 2006 to select their candidates for various offices to be contested across the country. In Uyo Federal Constituency of Akwa Ibom State, the then ruling party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, PDP, in primaries conducted in December 2006, selected Bassey Obot as their candidate to fly their flag in the contest for a seat in the House of Representatives. In a country where the most consequential things are accomplished by the unknown, some unknown persons contrived to remove Mr. Obot’s name from the records of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, substituting him with one Mr. Bassey Etim as the PDP candidate.

In December 2007, the Court of Appeal ordered the President of the Court of Appeal to constitute a new tribunal in Uyo to hear Mr. Obot’s case. Mr. Aondoakaa, then newly installed as the HAGF, wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA) claiming powers to instruct him not to comply with the order of the Court of Appeal. He cited as his reason the fact that he was considering a petition from Mr. Etim. Unable to contrive a sensible reason to disobey the order of a court over which he presided, however, the PCA disregarded Mr. Aondoakaa’s importuning and obeyed the Court of Appeal.

In April 2008, the Tribunal decided in favour of Mr. Obot, ordering INEC to certify him as the winner, so he could be sworn in as such. The Court of Appeal, the final arbiter then in disputes over elections to parliament, affirmed the judgment of the tribunal. In separate letters thereafter to the INEC Chairman and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Aondoakaa again required them to disobey and disregard the final orders of the Court of Appeal. They complied. Allegations that Mr. Aondoakaa issued those letters in exchange for value were unverified but not implausible.

On 15 May 2009, Mr. Obot, whose judicial victory had been frustrated by the HAGF, returned to the Federal High Court, asking it to declare that Mr. Aondoakaa had abused his office and desecrated the independence and authority of the judiciary. On 1 June 2010, the Federal High Court obliged him, lamenting that “the hallowed office of the HAGF has been gradually desecrated and put into disrepute with the likes of [Mr. Aondoakaa] being appointed and occupying it. It is meant for learned eminent members of the Bar and not for political charlatans, jobbers or latter-day praise singers/converts….”

On 3 September 2015, the Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment of the High Court with the hope that “that office [of HAGF] should never again be occupied by individuals of such poor quality as [Mr. Aondoakaa].” The Court of Appeal went further and invited the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, “to subject [Mr. Aondoakaa] to its appropriate disciplinary processes.”

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Aondoakaa did not deny what he did but claimed that he only acted as an adviser in the letters he wrote and that the recipients were at liberty to disregard his opinion. The Supreme Court made short shrift of Aondoakaa’s chicanery. Describing his conduct as “reprehensible”, “reckless” and “unbecoming of the occupant of such an exalted office,” the Court accused him of violating Rule 30 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) in the Legal Profession which require every lawyer to refrain from doing “any act or conduct….in any manner that may obstruct, delay or adversely affect the administration of justice.”

There were no consequences.

Before Mr. Aondoakaa, there was the case of Kunle Kalejaiye, SAN, involved in corrupting a judge, Thomas Naron, in an election petition. In 2013, Thomas Naron lost his job but the Supreme Court decided in 2019 on a disreputable technicality that Mr. Kalejaiye could keep his. Two years later, the same court similarly decided that there should be no consequences in the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike, another SAN whose speciality was “inducing court registrars to ensure that his cases were assigned to his preferred judges so he could obtain favourable judgments.”

Chief Mike Ozekhome is rightly described as “one of Nigeria’s most high-profile lawyers.” Few will quibble with his claim to be serenaded in those terms. In addition to being a Life Bencher, Chief Ozekhome is also a SAN. The combination of these two attainments makes him one of the most senior lawyers in Nigeria. His is only the latest in a long line of senior lawyers whose relationship with the rules of professional conduct appears to be governed by a Teflon rule of no consequence.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

A close and respected friend had asked this question below, concerning the now viral television interview encounter between Minister of Works, David Umahi, and Arise Television anchor, Rufai Oseni:

“How do you describe someone who invites you to his own space for a dialogue but decided to be rude and disrespectful all in the name of being a fearless journalist?”

My response to him and countless others like him whom I have read their comments, particularly on social media, is this; did you watch the same interview that I watched? If the same interview, then, point of correction; David Umahi requested to be there, not invited, and his request graciously granted.

Secondly, you said he came for a “dialogue”. Wrong again.

From evidence provided of that broadcast, now readily available in the public domain, the Minister didn’t go to Arise TV for a dialogue but a monologue, where he assumed he had the prerogative of monopolizing an interview which is supposed to be a function of give and take; I ask the questions, and you provide the answers.

Thirdly, you said Rufai was rude and disrespectful. How? And in what manner or precise words spoken by him and addressed to Umahi can rudeness and disrespect be implied?

I have read and heard several comments from people who said Rufai was rude and disrespectful because he told the Minister to “Keep quiet”.

They are wrong; both in conclusion and contextualization.

“Keep quiet”, as a two-word, full sentence, delivered as a stand alone and not part of a longer sentence, is a command and an order demanding obedience from the person so addressed by that command. In other words, a strong admonition and warning to stop talking IMMEDIATELY.

Were Rufai Oseni’s words to Minister David Umahi delivered as a two-word, full sentence of stern command? Evidence available says, NO. If he had indeed addressed the Minister in this manner, “Keep quiet”, he would indeed be guilty of rudeness and disrespect.

But what were Rufai Oseni’s exact and precise words to David Umahi, which many have run on to social media with, accusing him of rudeness and disrespect?

Oseni: “If you can just keep quiet and be calm, and just allow me to speak, I’ll be happy”

Was this rudeness? In my dictionary; No. It was a polite and respectful request, directed especially to a man who presumably had come for a dialogue but had actually come combative; aggressively, condescendingly, and rudely monopolizing the conversation for over ten minutes without allowing the one who is charged with posing the questions to put in even sixty seconds of words

What arrant nonsense!

Since when did an interview translate to a one-man, one-directional monopoly of public engagement?

Even after Rufai had asked politely several times to be allowed to speak, and even complained, facing the camera saying, “Minister will not allow me to speak, Minister will not allow me to speak”, that arrogant fellow employed by the public purse still continued ranting, not willing to let the man do his job.

If he wanted a platform all to himself without having any journalists questioning him, all he needed to do was arrange a press conference, read a prepared statement, distribute same to the journalists and media stations paid to cover it, and then depart immediately afterwards without answering any questions.

It is the sad and unfortunate position of people who, rather than condemn the arrogant, haughty, and disrespectful attitudes of public servants who believe they are beyond being questioned, but would instead turn around and lambast journalists who have the courage of asking the hard questions, that give public servants like Umahi who have transformed themselves into the public’s Masters, the arrogance and audacity to continue in their annoying and insulting belligerence towards their employers, the public, as ably represented by one of the finest breeds in journalism today.

Rufai Oseni refuses to be cowed, to be enticed by brown envelopes and brandished opportunities in the corridors of power, but continues to stand stoutly and bravely, asking the hard questions and demanding the answers on behalf of all of us, the voiceless majority.

Anyone accusing him of rudeness and disrespect towards David Umahi in that interview definitely watched it with a biased, preconceived, and jaundiced mind.

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.

The recent actions of the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) Nigeria, Mr. Oluwatosin Ajayi, in compensating individuals wrongfully arrested and detained by the agency, serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of attitude in leadership. This gesture not only showcases the DG’s commitment to upholding human rights but also highlights the impact of attitude on organisational culture and public perception.

The DG DSS’s decision to compensate the wrongfully arrested individuals and offer apologies to others demonstrates a significant shift towards accountability and transparency. This attitude is reflected in the DG’s directive to investigate and discipline officers involved in the wrongful arrests, ensuring that those responsible are held accountable for their actions. This is quite unusual and doesn’t smack of an offering from a Nigerian leader, especially from security and intelligence sector that the civil society organisations and the media have always derided for overzealousness and willful violations of human rights. In the news media, we say this is newsworthy because it sounds bizarre, unusual and odd.

Here is the thing, by taking responsibility for the agency’s mistakes and providing compensation, the DSS, easily one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in this regard, is working to restore public trust and confidence in the agency. This approach is essential in building a positive relationship between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

The DG’s actions demonstrate a commitment to leading by example. By acknowledging and rectifying mistakes, he sets a positive tone for the agency and encourages others to follow suit. This leadership style promotes a culture of accountability and transparency within the organisation. As I was saying, this should have a bandwagon effect on other national security, intelligence, military and even para-military agencies’ leaders who do not feel that they have a responsibility to dignify people they serve on their beats. Most of the leaders who often trample on the rights of the civil society activists and media operatives should borrow a leaf from the new deal at the Directorate of State Security.

Doubtless, the DG’s attitude towards accountability and transparency will continue to promote a culture of responsibility, where officers are held accountable for their actions, and that will encourage a more nuanced approach to security operations. Besides, this attitude will shift the culture of the secret service as long as Nigeria’s duty bearers and authorities continue too with robust succession plans in the security and intelligence communities. A situation whereby immediate past President recalled retired officers who could not pass promotion examinations to directorate cadres to be directors-general of such sensitive organisations could not have produced anything else other than a culture of mediocrity.

Apology isn’t a sign of weakness, after all
According to the United Nations, in our personal relationships, apologies seem to be easier than in working relationships. We may fear that apologising to even a colleague in a competitive environment might be perceived as a sign of weakness, undermine our authority or even negatively affect office dynamics. However, an honest and sincere apology has the potential to restore dignity and diminish fear of retaliation or even desire for vengeance on the receiving end. On the giving end, it can be a powerful tool to reconcile a working relationship and to initiate the restoration of trust. In this way, an apology can show strength of character, demonstrate emotional competence and reaffirm that both parties share values in their relationship they want to commit to.

I would like to stress here that we should begin to look at some classics that didn’t fail some of our legends before civilisation kicked us in the face. So, as we continue to grope from darkness to darkness, we need to share some values that can shape our character as a nation. I wrote here the other day on the ‘power of character’, which some icons actually say ‘is destiny’. Yes, ‘character is destiny’. That is, attitude, yes attitude is everything!

I have tested some of the classics and I have found them profoundly powerful enough to shape and even fulfill our destiny as the most populous black nation on earth. We should begin to share with our leaders and managers of our enterprises that there are some simple but significant ‘magic words’ they need to embrace to calm frayed nerves in and out of seasons, in good and bad times. It is a time to tell our leaders that at such a time as this, they need to swallow their pride and vanity and imbibe a habit of apologising to the people they lead. And here is why:

Our leaders hardly understand the most important sentence in the constitution: ‘The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government…’ Most of our leaders care only about their security votes as ‘slush funds’ to take care of their future including (re-)election. They hurt the people every day. Through their callous acts, they hurt most families, old and young. They hardly pay salaries and pensions in most states and local governments. Our leaders whose recklessness has triggered import-dependent economy hardly reflect on the consequences of high prices of food items and (consumer) essential goods at this time.

As I was saying, our leaders are also using dubious means to extort even poor motorbike riders by collecting multiple taxes from them every day even in Lagos and Abuja. They don’t care about what happens to the poor and vulnerable, Frantz Fanon calls “the wretched of the earth”.

Our leaders violate even our organic laws to the extent that the Supreme Court even claimed in 2020 that our leaders are ‘taking impunity too far’. In Africa’s most populous nation, the Senate can reject a president’s nominee but the president can call the bluff of the upper house and allow the rejected candidate to begin work and complete some tenure of even five years in office. This is an economy where the federal legislators individually earn higher than the president, vice president, and the ministers of even the richest countries in the world and there is no strong institution to ask questions.

That is why I feel that our leaders should seek the face of God by asking for His grace to understand the power of apologising to the people at this time. There is tension in the land. There is hunger they deny with dubious statistics. There is unbearable inflation they claim they have stabilised. There is insufferable level of corruption they promised to eliminate since 2015. What is worse, it seems to the people that rampaging corruption is fuelling rising insecurity nurtured by terrorism they want us to call banditry. Our leaders therefore need to realise the power of apologising to the people at this time. Here again are more reasons:

Saying You’re Sorry is called apologising. When you apologise, you’re telling someone that you’re sorry for the hurt you caused, even if you didn’t do it deliberately. An apology is a statement that has two key elements: it shows your remorse over your actions and an acknowledgement of the hurt that your actions have caused to someone else. Col. Sanjeet Sirohi, an Indian motivational speaker and soft skill trainer says, ‘I am sorry’ is the most powerful sentence in the world. ‘Why should we apologise?’

There are many reasons we should make a sincere apology when we have hurt someone unnecessarily, or have made a mistake. First, an apology opens a dialogue between yourself and the other person you seem to have hurt. Second, when we apologise, we also acknowledge that we engaged in unacceptable behaviour. This helps us rebuild trust and re-establish our relationship with the other person. Third, what’s more, when we admit that the situation was our fault, we restore dignity to the person we hurt.

In the main, a sincere apology shows that we are taking responsibility for our actions.

‘Why apologies can be difficult’
Despite all these positive reasons, why do some people still find it difficult to apologise? In the first place, it takes courage to apologise. When you admit that you were wrong, it puts you in a vulnerable position, which can open you up to attack or blame.  According to Sirobi, you may be so full of shame and embarrassment over your actions that you can’t bring yourself to face the other person. What is more, you may find yourself following some advice that, “never apologise, never explain.” It’s up to you if you want to be arrogant and damn some consequences.

You may ask somehow if apologising can fix everything. This is another feeling but saying ‘I’m sorry’ when you need to is the right thing to do. It does a lot of good. But by itself, it might not be enough to make everything all better again. Sometimes along with an apology, a person needs to fix the mistake or promise to do better. Sirobi agrees with this line of thought.

Gone are the days of keeping everything bottled up inside to suffer alone.
As we move forward in this time of self-knowledge and self-discovery, it’s vital to acquire the ability to recognise our own mistakes.

So, people in authority in Nigeria need to be told to realise that nobody is perfect and so they are not perfect. They need to realise at this juncture that they cause emotional pain to citizens of this country every day. The trouble, however, lies in their refusal or failure to acknowledge that they have done the people some wrong.

This is therefore a time to tell our leaders in Nigeria that they need to apologise to us as they have hurt us a great deal through poor leadership to the citizens and indeed the black race. Our leaders should swallow their pride and vanity for them to realise that even national apologies can be a big deal. When they offer that, they acknowledge the past to help move everyone forward. We may need to explore more about this context: when nations apologise!

In the main, the compensation and apologies offered by the DG DSS Nigeria demonstrate the power of attitude in leadership. Our leaders at all levels should note and reflect on this today: there is no power when leaders and managers display arrogance and recklessness. And so by prioritising accountability, transparency, and human rights, the DG, DSS, Mr. Ajayi has set a positive tone for the agency and promoted a culture of responsibility. As the DSS DG who has boldly restored the DSS as a Secret Service indeed, continues to work towards building trust with the communities the DSS serves, his approach should serve as a valuable lesson for leaders who do not know that attitude is everything, after all!

The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.