Fresh controversy has erupted inside Nigerian Bar Association after the Court of Appeal in Abuja adjourned a politically sensitive case challenging the association’s refusal to release materials used in its disputed 2024 presidential election.
The instututed by Tobenna Erojikwe, the first runner-up in the July 2024 NBA presidential poll, is rapidly evolving into a broader test of transparency, internal democracy, and accountability within Nigeria’s most influential legal body.
But what unfolded in court on Thursday only deepened suspicions.
After the appellate court rejected an adjournment request from NBA lawyers, who claimed they could not make it to Abuja due to travel difficulties, the hearing took an unexpected turn when key legal documents, including parts of the respondents’ filings, were reportedly missing from the justices’ case files.
The development forced the court to postpone proceedings until May 11.
Now, lawyers across the country are asking an uncomfortable question: Is the NBA trying to keep hidden?
At the base of the dispute is a constitutional provision many lawyers argue should make the matter straightforward.
The Second Schedule, Part II, Paragraph 8 of the NBA Constitution requires the association to provide election materials—including databases and other relevant records—to any interested party upon request, in the interest of transparency and openness.
Erojikwe says that after finishing second in the July 20, 2024 NBA presidential election, he requested access to the materials used for the electronic vote audit—but was denied.
He subsequently approached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory seeking an order compelling the NBA to comply with its own constitution. The trial court however, sided with the NBA.
The court held that releasing the records could violate data privacy protections and ruled that Erojikwe would first need the consent of all lawyers who participated in the election before accessing the materials. To critics, the ruling was extraordinary.
Supporters of the appeal argue that the judgment ignored clear exceptions contained in Nigeria’s data protection laws and created what they describe as an impossible standard for electoral accountability.
One lawyer familiar with the dispute compared the logic to asking a presidential candidate to obtain consent from every Nigerian voter before Independent National Electoral Commission could release election results sheets or voting records.
But NBA insists that the “evaluation of the evidence before the court as per the dictate of the provisions of Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the decision on Oyovbiare v Omamurhomu (1990) 10 NEWLY (PT.621) 23 AT 34 Paragraphs F-G, the Appellant has not put anything on his side of the scale held by Lady Justice to enable this court interfere with the judgment of the lower court. No perversity has been shown to warrant disturbing the finding of the learned trial court judge. “
Delay Tactics or Due Process?
The atmosphere around the appeal has become increasingly tense.
According to Erojikwe’s legal team, the NBA has repeatedly delayed proceedings despite the urgency of the matter, especially with another NBA election expected in July.
During Thursday’s proceedings, counsel to the appellant, Okechukwu Umemuo, opposed the NBA’s adjournment request, accusing the association of deploying procedural tactics to frustrate the hearing.
He urged the court to invoke Order 6 Rule 8(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, which allows applications to proceed even when a party fails to appear after filing its processes.
Order 6 Rule 8 (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 which provides that:
(2) Where the parties have filed written address and other relevant process in relation to an application, any of the parties or their legal representatives do not appear on the day fixed for hearing of the application, the application will be treated as having been duly argued; provided that the application will still be treated as argued even where a party has failed to file his processes and the time limited for filing has expired.
The court agreed and dismissed the NBA’s request for adjournment.
But just as proceedings appeared set to move forward, another complication emerged: several key filings, including the respondent’s brief of argument, were nowhere to be found in the justices’ files, despite reports that court registry officials had confirmed their presence earlier that morning.
The missing documents abruptly halted the hearing.
Growing Questions Inside the Legal Community
The dispute is now triggering broader scrutiny within the legal profession over how the NBA conducts its internal elections—particularly its electronic voting system.
For many observers, the controversy is no longer just about one candidate’s request for documents.
It is about institutional credibility.
“If the process was clean and transparent, why should it be difficult to audit?” one Abuja-based lawyer familiar with the matter asked privately after Thursday’s proceedings.
The NBA, however, insists the lower court’s judgment was legally sound.
In its filings, the association argued that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify overturning the trial court’s ruling and maintained that no perversity had been established warranting appellate interference.
Still, critics say the association’s resistance to releasing election materials risks undermining confidence in the credibility of its own democratic processes.
And with another election cycle approaching fast, pressure is mounting for answers.
