In a style distinctly imitative of the bullying tactics of Peter Obi’s Obidient movement, the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) last week at its annual conference in Enugu threw caution to the wind and immersed itself in the murky waters of politics. One of the moderators of the conference, Seun Okinbaloye of Channels Television, asked the gathering of lawyers three loaded and leading questions about the state of Nigeria during the panel discussions session. The lawyers of course had no elbow room to answer the questions in a way their Law professors would applaud them. The problem was not that questions were asked, as defective and unprofessional as they were, or that the Bola Tinubu administration was or was not popular with the NBA or any other professional bodies for that matter. The problem was that the questions were posed mala fide, and the answers chorused by the lawyers were unflattering of an association which seemed at peace with the contradiction of collecting donations from the Siminalayi Fubara administration in Rivers State and relocating the conference to another state.
In Enugu last week, the bar association gave the impression it had the courage to speak truth to power, and saw neither fallacy nor contradiction appointing themselves as the country’s conscience and pathfinder. If it is established that Mr Okinbaloye posed his controversial questions to the general conference in collusion with the NBA leadership, it may signal the precipitous decline of a great association which had for decades maturely and brilliantly approximated the yearnings of Nigerians and fought for the rule of law. Under the presidency of Olumide Apata, the association found it difficult to extricate itself from crass politicking. Under Afam Osigwe, the current president, the NBA is further immersing itself in politics, doubling down on poor judgement, and inadvertently whittling down the influence of an otherwise respected professional body. It had no reason to solicit for financial assistance from any state government, as it did in Rivers, but if offered unsolicited as it claimed, it should know better than to receive it. Such assistance compromises both the independence and influence of the NBA. The association’s bad calls are now worsened by crass politicking.
The conference theme was “Stand Out, Stand Tall”. The Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar, applauded the theme and warned against the creeping commercialisation of justice in Nigeria. According to him, “Today, justice is increasingly becoming a purchasable commodity, and the poor are becoming victims of this kind of justice, while the rich commit all manner of crime and walk the streets scot-free.” Challenging the lawyers, he said: “You are resolving to uphold the highest principles of the rule of law to ensure that everyone, including those in power, is subject to and accountable under the law. If we are able to do this, we would have addressed the core of the crisis of governance in this country.” He is right, despite the NBA refusing to profit from his counsel. Indeed, when an association receives donations from a government body and refuses to refund it when it is accused of repudiating the understanding reached between the two parties, it is not hard to explain how and why unhealthy influences insidiously corrode the independence of the judiciary. In the Rivers State/Enugu State hosting controversy, the NBA demonstrated lack of faith as well as showed poor understanding of political and ethical boundaries.
Read Also: Tinubu’s FX reforms position Naira as export engine – Yakubu
Nothing shows how deeply misguided or even compromised the NBA has become than its invitation to one of South Africa’s opposition leaders, Julius Malema, the controversial and fiery leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) who was expelled from the ruling African National Congress (ANC) in 2012. He had been president of the ANC Youth League, and had twice or thrice been convicted of hate speech, the last conviction verdict passed last Wednesday. He is a supporter of Hamas, and was last June denied visa to the United Kingdom for “behaviour non-conducive to public good.” At the NBA conference, his pretty anodyne speech waxed lyrical about why Africa should synergise industrialisation and beware of debt trap. He also condemned xenophobia, and called for continental cooperation in furtherance of African unity. If his hosts had expected him to engage in the fiery rhetoric he is famous for in South Africa, which has led him to three hate speech trials, they were probably disappointed. But overall, the invitation to the 44-year-old Mr Malema was a reflection of the infantilism that started manifesting during the presidency of Olumide Apata (2020-2022), slowed down a little by the presidency of Yakubu Maikyau (2022-2024), but has now revved up and reached its apogee under the present NBA leadership.
If the elders of the profession were upset by how the conference turned out or the histrionics that polluted the sanctity of the meeting, they were perhaps too polite to complain. When Mr Okinbaloye led the conference to its three denunciations, the elders seated at the front row wearing glacial expressions and sitting through the charade grimly. They did not join the chorus, did not find the leading questions amusing, and only rose to their feet when the panel moderator called for a standing ovation for Interior minister Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo. The opposition, whether in the political coalition or the Obidients, has seemed to perfect the art of singling out a few members of the Tinubu administration for endorsement. Last May, former Kaduna governor Nasir el-Rufai singled out Bosun Tijani, Communications and Digital Economy minister, for endorsement, insisting that he stood out in the administration, and was a candidate to be retained as minister if the coalition took the presidency in 2027. In Enugu, the NBA also singled out Mr Tunji-Ojo for applause, indeed standing ovation. A few more such trivialities and demonstration of partisanship might irreparably split or damage the association.
The NBA had slated former president Olusegun Obasanjo as chairman of the opening ceremony of the conference. They had a sensible reason to do so. The former president, who is considered one of Mr Obi’s leading supporters, recently dug his political heels in with the sanctimonious blather about running out of time, given his age, and needing to help midwife a new Nigeria. He downplayed or was silent about his massive contributions in undermining democracy and enthroning illiberal tendency on the country as president. But he has always had the courage of his convictions. Had he attended the conference and witnessed the hysteria Mr Okinbaloye inspired among the lawyers, the former president might have inundated the gathering with his narrow and self-gratifying message of change. Lawyers are conversant with the technicality of leading questions, but so too are journalists. Both professions always recognise when they are being led by the nose by vested interests who seek to promote private agenda. Why the lawyers’ conference chose to dismantle the guardrails that protect their profession from the scourge of partisanship and frenetic leadership, and instead hurtled down the slippery slope of politics, must be the puzzle of the year.
