Find Articles

Loading...
Light Dark

Bombshell Ruling: Appeal Court Crushes Order That Froze NBA Election, Slaps Down AGF’s Powers

The Court of Appeal’s Ibadan Division has set aside the proceedings and interim orders of the Oyo State High Court that had halted the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association National Officers’ Election, ruling that the lower court never had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place.

In a unanimous judgment delivered July 14, 2026, Justice Fadawu Umaru, with Justices Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi and Fatima Binta Zubairu concurring, allowed the appeal filed by Aham Ejelam, Ibrahim Aliyu Nasarawa, Muhammad M. Nuhu, Uju Okafor and Ume Maduka against Gabriel Ojo Adekunle Ijalana, the Incorporated Trustees of the NBA, Afam Josiah Osigwe, the Body of Benchers, and the Attorney General of the Federation in his capacity as Chairman of the General Council of the Bar, among other respondents. The appeal challenged a March 4, 2026 ruling by Justice G.A. Opayinka of the Oyo State High Court, which had granted an ex parte interim injunction stopping the appellants from acting as members of the Electoral Committee of the Nigerian Bar Association or taking further steps toward conducting the election, in a suit originally filed through an originating summons seeking interpretation of provisions in the 2025 amended NBA Constitution governing the committee’s composition and related sections of the Legal Practitioners Act.

Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Umaru held that jurisdiction remains the lifeblood of every judicial proceeding, and that where a court lacks it, every step taken, however well conducted, amounts to a nullity, a threshold issue that must be resolved before any court can validly exercise judicial authority. The appellate court agreed with the appellants that the underlying dispute centred on interpreting the NBA Constitution, the governing instrument of an incorporated trustee registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, placing it within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution rather than a state high court, since the respondents were really questioning appointments made under that constitution rather than simple administrative actions. The court further found the case had been wrongly filed in Oyo State to begin with, since the disputed appointments were made during a National Executive Council meeting in Benin City and the appellants perform their official duties in Abuja, describing the choice of the Ibadan judicial division as a classic case of forum shopping amounting to an abuse of court process. The court also held that the original plaintiffs lacked standing, since they were neither aspirants nor candidates in the NBA election and failed to show they had suffered any personal legal injury from the appointments they challenged, and noted they never referred their dispute to the NBA Dispute Resolution Committee as Article 21 of the NBA Constitution requires before going to court. It further faulted the ex parte injunction itself, ruling that it effectively granted the substantive relief sought before the appellants had any chance to be heard, contrary to settled principles governing interlocutory relief and the constitutional right to fair hearing.

In a separate concurring judgment, Justice Kenneth Ikechukwu Amadi made a pointed ruling on the limits of the Attorney General’s power, addressing whether that office can issue any directive in a matter pending before a court. The obvious answer is certainly no, he held, to allow that will certainly enable that office to usurp and interfere with matters before the courts. Amadi also criticised counsel for the original plaintiffs for declining to adopt their brief of argument despite being present in court, calling it a blatant disregard for established appellate procedure and ruling that a brief only acquires legal effect once adopted, striking out the respondents’ brief and leaving the appeal effectively unchallenged by that side. The court declared the Oyo State High Court’s March 4, 2026 proceedings and interim injunction null and void, struck out the underlying suit for want of jurisdiction, and made no order as to costs.