By Sylvester Udemezue
- A group known as the Public Interest Lawyers League (PILL) recently called on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to refund “the controversial N300 million donation” it received from the Rivers State Government under Governor Siminalayi Fubara. Speaking at a press conference in Abuja on 24 April 2025, Dr. Abdul Mahmud, President of PILL, argued that a refund was necessary to restore public trust and safeguard the moral authority of the Bar. According to Dr. Mahmud, the non-disclosure of the donation, only revealed through a statement by the Sole Administrator of Rivers State, raised serious concerns about transparency and ethical conduct within the NBA. He insisted that this issue “is not just about money; it is about principle, accountability, and the integrity of an institution that has long positioned itself as a guardian of the rule of law.” In addition to calling for a refund, PILL demanded the resignation of Mr. Afam Osigwe, SAN (NBA President), and Mr. Emeka Obegolu, SAN (Chairman of the NBA-AGC Planning Committee), claiming such actions were necessary to rebuild public confidence in the Association.
- With due respect, these calls are legally unsound, intellectually unreflective, and grossly misconceived.
- First, under settled principles of law, a gift is a voluntary transfer of property or money from a donor to a donee without expectation of something in return. Once delivered and accepted, ownership passes immediately and irrevocably to the donee. Nigerian law, like common law, recognizes that a completed gift cannot be revoked except where fraud, duress, mistake, or illegality is proven. No such vitiating factors exist in the case of the N300 million donation. The Rivers State Government made a voluntary, unconditional donation to the NBA for the purpose of supporting the planning of the 2025 Annual General Conference (AGC). No enforceable conditions were attached; no strings were left hanging.
- Second, the statement accompanying the donation, that the funds were intended to support the AGC, demonstrates an immediate and purposive intent. This triggers the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which prevents a donor from reneging on a voluntary commitment that has been relied upon to the receiving party’s detriment. Having accepted the donation and commenced conference planning activities based on it, the NBA is insulated against any belated claims or demands for a refund. Courts, guided by the maxim that equity does not aid a volunteer, will not intervene to undo a completed gift merely because the donor has had a change of heart.
- Third, the NBA is under no legal obligation to announce publicly every donation it receives during conference preparations. The NBA-AGC Planning Committee, empowered by the NBA’s National Executive Council (NEC), is authorized to raise and deploy funds for conference activities. After the conference, the Committee submits a comprehensive report detailing all receipts, expenditures, and sponsorships to the NEC. This long-standing practice safeguards transparency and accountability, and there is no evidence of deviation in the present circumstances.
- Public policy strongly favors certainty and finality in voluntary transfers. Permitting donors to reclaim unconditional gifts after the fact would create legal uncertainty, undermine trust in charitable and professional transactions, and destabilize institutional integrity. The law is designed to protect not only the expectations of the donee but also the sanctity of properly concluded transactions.
- Furthermore, the principle of freedom of contract and donation upholds the autonomy of individuals and entities to make voluntary transfers of their property. To compel a return of the N300 million donation in the absence of fraud, coercion, or mistake would violate Rivers State’s own exercise of free will and autonomy at the time the donation was made.
- The absence of any evidence of fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake further cements the NBA’s right to retain the donation. The NBA obtained the funds properly, for a legitimate purpose, and acted responsibly in its application. There is no legal or moral basis for demanding a refund.
- Whether the relocation of the AGC was justified is a separate matter entirely, one I propose to address at a later date. However, with respect to the N300 million donation, there is no ambiguity: the NBA is under neither legal nor moral obligation to refund what was lawfully and unconditionally given.
- The REALITY, therefore, is that those calling for a refund are either motivated by political considerations or are misinformed about the law. Their demands are grossly misconceived and deserve to be firmly rejected by the NBA and ignored by all right-thinking members of society.
Respectfully,
§¢µð𝓮̂𝓶𝓮̂𝔃µ𝓮̂
Sylvester Udemezue (udems)
Lawyer, Law Teacher, and Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM) (A Nonaligned, Nonprofit Public Interest Law Advocacy Group)
08109024556.
TheRealityMinister@Gmail.Com
(26 April 2025)
