NBA rejects AGF's alleged directives on 2026 election

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has firmly rejected alleged directives attributed to the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) that sought to postpone the association's 2026 national officers' election. The NBA asserted its independence, emphasizing that only its National Executive Council (NEC) possesses the constitutional authority to make such decisions.

“

is an independent body not subject to the control and directive of the Office of the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation or any other arm of government.

The statement, issued by NBA President Afam Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), was a direct response to a circulating document. This document reportedly contained recommendations from a sub-committee and comments from the AGF, suggesting the disbandment of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association (ECNBA), election postponement, replacement of the service provider, appointment of a caretaker committee, mandatory National Identification Number (NIN) verification, and a constitutional "recalibration" to remove universal suffrage.

The NBA declared that it operates as an independent body, not subject to the control or directives of the AGF's office or any other government arm. The association confirmed that its national officers' electoral process will continue as planned by the ECNBA. It characterized the alleged directives as "entirely unconstitutional" and "ultra vires" the AGF's powers, citing the Legal Practitioners Act which outlines specific, limited circumstances for external interference, none of which apply here.

“

The NBA National Officers electoral process shall continue as scheduled by the ECNBA.

This dispute arises amidst controversy surrounding the 2026 election, which has already been the subject of litigation. The AGF had convened a stakeholders' meeting on June 11 to help resolve the dispute. Participants agreed to form a sub-committee to liaise with parties and facilitate the withdrawal of court cases. However, the NBA questioned the authenticity of the circulated document, stating it never received official communication of the recommendations. The association argued that the AGF, having convened the meeting as a mediator, could not lawfully issue binding directives.

“

entirely unconstitutional and ultra vires the powers of the AGF.