The controversy surrounding the recently concluded Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) national elections has entered a new phase, with two former presidents of the Association advancing sharply different prescriptions for resolving the growing dispute, even as another past NBA leader called for an independent constitutional audit as the only credible path to restoring confidence in the electoral process.
Their interventions come against the backdrop of a pending suit before the Federal High Court in Abuja seeking to halt the inauguration of President-elect, Mrs. Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, and other newly elected national officers over allegations of irregularities in the electronic voting process.
The latest exchange began after former NBA President, J.B. Daudu, SAN, questioned the legitimacy of the July 2026 election, arguing that widespread technical failures, cyberattacks and voting glitches substantially undermined the integrity of the exercise. While acknowledging that he had supported one of the presidential candidates, Daudu maintained that the election could not command the confidence of the profession when thousands of lawyers reportedly encountered difficulties in exercising their franchise.
Pointing to the disparity between the more than 82,000 lawyers listed on the voters’ register and the significantly lower number of votes eventually recorded, Daudu contended that the election raised fundamental questions about inclusiveness and credibility. He also called for a full explanation of reports that the electronic voting platform had been migrated to a replacement server during the exercise, warning that unless the concerns were addressed transparently, confidence in the NBA’s electoral system could suffer lasting damage.
His intervention drew a swift response from another former NBA President, Chief O.C.J. Okocha, SAN, who challenged what he described as assumptions underpinning claims of mass disenfranchisement.
Rather than defending every aspect of the election, Okocha questioned whether the allegations had been supported by verifiable evidence. He asked whether all lawyers now complaining had actually registered to vote, who compiled the register of eligible voters, whether it could be established that every lawyer claiming disenfranchisement genuinely attempted to cast a ballot, and, more significantly, whether there was any evidence that the reported glitches, cyberattacks or technical disruptions benefited any particular candidate.
Okocha observed that Daudu himself had publicly supported a preferred presidential candidate, noting that every lawyer was equally entitled to vote for the candidate of his or her choice and that those whose candidates emerged victorious also deserved to have their votes respected.
“As we know too well, the syndrome of sour grapes is part and parcel of our partisan human nature,” the former NBA President remarked, while urging lawyers, particularly the candidates who participated in the election, to move beyond the contest and focus instead on strengthening the Association’s electoral architecture.
He nevertheless conceded that the NBA’s electoral process “is undoubtedly in need of reform,” calling on members of the Bar to channel their energies toward improving future elections rather than prolonging divisions arising from the last poll.
As the debate intensified, a former 1st Vice President of the NBA, John Aikpokpo-Martins, proposed what many observers regard as a constitutional middle ground. He noted that the NBA Constitution already provides for an audit of elections and argued that the Association should allow that mechanism to determine the fate of the disputed poll instead of allowing speculation and competing narratives to dominate public discourse.
According to him, the President-elect has publicly undertaken to resign if any independent audit establishes that the election was manipulated in her favour, a commitment he said should now be tested through a transparent verification process.
“At this point, the responsible and statesmanlike call that well-meaning lawyers—including the other candidates and their supporters—ought to be making is for an independent and transparent audit of the election,” he said.
He argued that if the audit established that the election had indeed been rigged in favour of the President-elect, she should honour her public commitment by stepping aside to pave the way for a fresh election. Conversely, if the audit vindicated the process, he maintained that she should be allowed to enjoy the mandate freely given to her by members of the Bar and be sworn into office without further controversy.
Anything short of such an institutional process, he warned, amounted to little more than “deliberate gaslighting” capable of inflaming passions without factual foundation.
The interventions by two former NBA presidents and a former 1st Vice President underscore a deeper constitutional question that now confronts the Association. Beyond political preferences and competing post-election narratives lies a more fundamental legal issue: what standard should govern the invalidation of an election conducted under the NBA Constitution?
For many legal observers, that question mirrors the principles regularly applied by Nigerian courts in election petitions, where irregularities, however serious, do not automatically nullify an election unless it is demonstrated that they substantially affected the outcome. Whether that jurisprudential principle should equally guide internal professional elections is now emerging as one of the defining legal debates arising from the 2026 NBA poll.
The controversy has already spilled into the courts. In a suit pending before the Federal High Court, the Incorporated Trustees of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP) is seeking, among other reliefs, an order restraining the swearing-in of the newly elected NBA leadership pending the determination of questions relating to the conduct of the election.
Regardless of how the litigation ends, there appears to be one point on which even opposing voices increasingly agree: the NBA’s electronic voting framework requires significant reforms. From cybersecurity safeguards and independent audit mechanisms to voter authentication, transparency and post-election accountability, many senior lawyers believe the Association must now use the present controversy as an opportunity to build a more robust electoral system capable of commanding the confidence of the profession in future elections.
