Another court stops NBA 2026 elections amid leadership crisis

The leadership crisis rocking the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has taken a new dimension as the Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan, Oyo State,  issued an interim order restraining the Association from proceeding with its 2026 National Officers’ Election.

In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, Justice G. A. Opayinka granted an ex parte application restraining members of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), from parading themselves as officials of the committee or taking any steps in furtherance of the forthcoming election, pending the determination of a motion for interlocutory injunction fixed for March 12.

The judge also restrained the NBA President, Maxi Afam Osigwe (SAN) and other defendants/respondents from taking any steps toward the composition of the ECNBA or from participating in, supervising, influencing, or interfering in any manner with the conduct of the 2026 National Officers’ Election pending the determination of the instant suit.

It is instructive to note that the suit marked: 1/221/2026 was filed by four legal practitioners: Ibrahim Lawal, Raymond Oki, Omotan Olusola Ogunmodede and Chief Gabriel Ojo Adekunle Ijalana.

The applicants/claimants had filed the instant suit against the NBA President and named the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA, Body of Benchers, the Attorney-General of the Federation (In its capacity as Chairman, General Council of the Bar), Aham Ejelam (SAN), Ibrahim Aliyu Nasarawa, Mohammed Nuhu, Uju Okafor Esq. and Ume Maduka as co-defendants/respondents to the suit.

The applicants/claimants are challenging the legitimacy of the electoral process and the role of the NBA leadership in its composition.

It is important to note that the second judicial intervention in two weeks over the Wednesday’s order marks the second judicial intervention into the NBA’s electoral process within two weeks.

For the record, another judge of the Oyo State High Court in Ibadan, had on February 24, 2026, granted an interim injunction in Suit No. I/205/2026 filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Egbe Amofin O’odua.

In that earlier ruling, the court restrained the NBA and its agents from recognising, accepting, or processing the nomination of any candidate other than Egbe Amofin’s consensus candidate for the office of NBA President in the forthcoming 2026 election, pending the determination of an interlocutory application.

The February 24 order effectively put on hold the presidential nomination process outside the consensus arrangement put forward by the Yoruba lawyers’ body, while the March 4 order has now halted the operational machinery of the electoral committee itself.

Together, the two rulings have cast significant uncertainty over the conduct and timeline of the NBA’s 2026 elections.

The litigation comes against the backdrop of a growing controversy involving the NBA President.

In recent weeks, senior members of the Bar have publicly raised ethical concerns over alleged undisclosed financial disbursements to certain members of the Association during an official engagement in Maiduguri.

The controversy has triggered sharp divisions within the profession, with some calling for full disclosure and institutional accountability, while others have dismissed the allegations as politically motivated.

Critics have argued that the alleged acceptance and selective distribution of funds, reportedly denominated in foreign currency contravene established NBA policy and ethical precedent requiring full disclosure and remittance of gifts received in the course of official engagements.

The controversy further intensified following public remarks attributed to the NBA President concerning the integrity of the judiciary, which some senior lawyers described as sweeping and judicious.

While the NBA President’s supporters insist that no wrongdoing has been established and that due process must prevail, opponents argue that the cumulative weight of the allegations has undermined confidence in the neutrality of the electoral process, thereby necessitating judicial intervention.

With both the nomination process and the electoral committee’s authority now subject to court orders, the 2026 NBA election timetable faces potential disruption.

Legal analysts note that interim injunctions are temporary preservative measures intended to protect the subject matter of litigation pending full hearing. But the overlapping orders suggest deep institutional fractures that may require more than procedural clarification to resolve.

The March 4 order specifically restrains the ECNBA Chairman and members from performing any function related to the election until the court hears the motion on notice scheduled for March 12.

Depending on the outcome of that hearing, the court may either lift the restraining order or convert it into a longer-lasting interlocutory injunction. Similarly, the February 24 matter is scheduled for further hearing on March 10.

The Nigerian Bar Association, widely regarded as one of the most influential professional bodies in Africa, now faces what observers describe as one of its most consequential internal crises in recent years.

The unfolding litigation not only raises questions about electoral procedure but also touches on broader themes of leadership accountability, internal democracy, and ethical governance within the legal profession.

As the matters return to court next week, stakeholders within and outside the Association will be watching closely. The outcome may determine, not only the trajectory of the 2026 elections, but also the future tone of institutional governance within the Bar.