By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
The warning came before the server failed.
Long before thousands of lawyers attempted to log on to participate in the Nigerian Bar Association’s 2026 national election, warning signs had begun to emerge. Litigation was pending. Constitutional questions had been raised. Allegations affecting confidence in the neutrality of aspects of the electoral process had become matters of public discussion. Senior members of the Bar openly expressed concern that unless those issues were addressed, the credibility of the election itself could come under scrutiny.
It was against that backdrop that the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, intervened. He did so not as an electoral umpire, but in his capacity as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and the traditional Official Leader of the Bar. His objective was simple: encourage dialogue among stakeholders and explore whether confidence in the process could be restored before the election proceeded.
That distinction is important because the Attorney General did not create the controversy. By the time he became involved, disagreements within the Bar had already crystallised into litigation and deep divisions among respected members of the legal profession. His intervention sought reconciliation, not control.
Following a stakeholders’ meeting, a three member committee chaired by former NBA President, Chief Wole Olanipekun, CFR, SAN, was constituted to examine the issues and recommend a way forward. Prince Lanke Odogiyon and another former NBA President, Paul Usoro, SAN, served as members. The committee itself reflected the complexity of the dispute.
Its majority report concluded that there were sufficient circumstances to create a perception of bias capable of undermining public confidence in the election. It recommended postponement of the poll to allow outstanding concerns to be addressed. Paul Usoro, SAN, however, dissented, disagreeing with aspects of both the committee’s approach and conclusions.
The disagreement did not diminish the value of the mediation process. If anything, it illustrated that the issues were serious enough to attract differing opinions from some of the profession’s most respected senior advocates.
One aspect of the mediation deserves particular attention.
Records indicate that the NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, participated in the stakeholders’ meeting that led to the constitution of the committee. Arrangements were subsequently made for him to appear before it and present his position. That presentation ultimately did not take place. Whatever the reasons, opportunities for mediation achieve their purpose only when all principal stakeholders remain fully engaged.
After considering the committee’s reports, the Attorney General recommended postponing the election to enable the identified concerns to be resolved. Mazi Osigwe disagreed. He maintained that the NBA’s constitutional organs possessed the authority to determine the electoral timetable and insisted that the election should proceed.
His position was anchored on an important principle: the institutional independence of the Nigerian Bar Association. On that point, there should be little disagreement. The Bar must remain free from improper external interference. Yet institutional independence does not preclude institutional introspection.
Many respected elders of the profession believed that pressing ahead without first rebuilding confidence carried unnecessary risks. Their concern was not merely whether the election would be lawful. It was whether it would command the confidence of the membership after weeks of controversy.
Events on election day inevitably revived those concerns. Although the reported technical problems were eventually addressed and voting continued, the interruption immediately fuelled suspicion because confidence had already been weakened before polling commenced.
Perhaps even more telling was the level of participation. Out of about 85,000 lawyers eligible to vote, only a little over 26,000 eventually cast their ballots. That represents a significant decline from the election that brought the incumbent President into office, when more than 40,000 lawyers reportedly voted in a process many participants considered comparatively smooth.
Low voter turnout does not, by itself, establish the reason for non participation. Some lawyers may have deliberately abstained because they had lost confidence in the process. Others may have encountered technical difficulties that prevented them from voting. Whatever the explanation, participation at that level inevitably raises legitimate questions that deserve careful examination.
Those questions became even more compelling after several lawyers publicly claimed they had been unable to vote.
One of the presidential candidates, Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, SAN, who rejected the outcome and described the election as rigged, publicly stated that although the Chairman of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association reportedly generated one time passwords for him on five separate occasions, he was still unable to gain access to the electronic voting platform to cast his ballot. He further alleged that many other lawyers experienced similar difficulties and were effectively disenfranchised.
Those allegations remain contested and should not be treated as established facts. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently serious to justify an independent technical review of the electoral process. Confidence in any election is strengthened, not weakened, when legitimate complaints are openly investigated.
There were also persistent allegations from some members of the Bar that aspects of the electoral process appeared to favour the eventual President elect over her opponents. Whether those allegations are ultimately substantiated is a matter for objective examination rather than speculation. The point is that once confidence begins to erode, perception itself becomes an institutional challenge.
That is why the Attorney General’s intervention deserves a fairer assessment than it has sometimes received.
His effort was neither an attempt to impose leadership on the NBA nor to interfere with its constitutional independence. Rather, it was an attempt to reconcile aggrieved stakeholders before differences hardened into a legitimacy crisis. In hindsight, the mediation initiative appears less like interference and more like an effort to preserve the credibility of an institution central to Nigeria’s legal and democratic development.
Encouragingly, the President elect herself appears to appreciate the importance of public confidence. By indicating that she does not want either her victory or her tenure to suffer questions of legitimacy and by expressing her willingness to submit the electoral process to scrutiny, she demonstrated an understanding that transparency strengthens leadership rather than diminishes it. That approach deserves commendation.
The incoming administration now has an opportunity to rebuild trust by supporting an independent review of the election, including the performance of the electronic voting platform, the handling of complaints, voter authentication procedures and every issue capable of improving future elections. Such a review should not be seen as an indictment of anyone. It should be viewed as an investment in the future credibility of the Association.
The Nigerian Bar Association has always been one of the country’s most influential institutions. It has consistently demanded accountability, transparency and adherence to due process from governments, public officials and other institutions. The Bar must therefore hold itself to those same exacting standards.
The greatest lesson from the 2026 election is not that a server experienced technical difficulties. Technology can fail. Systems can be improved. The greater lesson is that confidence, once diminished, is far more difficult to restore.
Institutions earn legitimacy not merely by conducting elections but by ensuring that every member believes the process is fair, transparent and worthy of trust. Leadership is measured not only by the courage to proceed but also by the wisdom to pause when genuine concerns threaten institutional cohesion.
The server eventually came back. Trust may take much longer.
That is the warning the Bar should not ignore.
Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645