Fresh controversy has engulfed the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Abuja to adjourn a politically sensitive case challenging the association’s refusal to release materials from its disputed 2024 presidential election.
The case, instituted by Tobenna Erojikwe—the first runner‑up in the July 2024 NBA presidential poll—has quickly evolved into a broader test of transparency, internal democracy, and accountability within Nigeria’s most influential professional body.
Thursday’s proceedings only heightened tensions. After rejecting an adjournment request from NBA lawyers, who claimed travel difficulties prevented their appearance in Abuja, the court was confronted with a startling development: key legal documents, including parts of the respondents’ filings, were missing from the justices’ case files.
This unexpected lapse forced the court to postpone the matter until May 11, fueling speculation among lawyers nationwide about whether the NBA is deliberately withholding information.
At the heart of the dispute lies a clear constitutional provision. The NBA Constitution (Second Schedule, Part II, Paragraph 8) requires the association to provide election materials—including databases and other relevant records—to any interested party upon request, in the interest of transparency.
Erojikwe maintains that after finishing second in the July 20, 2024 election, he sought access to the electronic voting records for audit purposes but was denied. He then approached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, seeking an order compelling the NBA to comply with its constitution.
The trial court, however, sided with the NBA, ruling that disclosure could breach data privacy protections. It held that Erojikwe would need the consent of all participating lawyers before accessing the materials—a decision critics describe as extraordinary and impractical.
Supporters of the appeal argue that the lower court ignored exceptions in Nigeria’s data protection laws and imposed an impossible standard for electoral accountability. One lawyer likened the ruling to requiring a presidential candidate to obtain consent from every Nigerian voter before the Independent National Electoral Commission could release election results.
The NBA, however, insists the trial court’s judgment was sound. In its filings, the association argued that the appellant failed to present sufficient evidence under Section 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011, citing precedent in Oyovbiare v. Omamurhomu (1990). It maintained that no perversity was shown to justify appellate interference.
Erojikwe’s legal team accuses the NBA of deliberately stalling proceedings, especially with another presidential election looming in July. Counsel to the appellant, Okechukwu Umemuo, opposed the NBA’s adjournment request, urging the court to apply Order 6 Rule 8(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021, which allows applications to proceed even if a party fails to appear after filing its processes.
The court agreed, dismissing the NBA’s request. Yet just as the matter seemed poised to advance, the missing filings halted progress once again.
The controversy is now sparking wider debate within the legal community about the credibility of the NBA’s internal electoral system, particularly its electronic voting process.
For many observers, the dispute transcends one candidate’s demand for documents—it strikes at the heart of institutional integrity. As one Abuja‑based lawyer remarked privately: “If the process was clean and transparent, why should it be difficult to audit?”
Critics warn that the NBA’s resistance to releasing election materials risks eroding confidence in its democratic processes. With another election cycle fast approaching, pressure is mounting on the association to provide clarity and uphold its own constitutional standards.
… NBA 2024 Election Transparency Dispute Deepens After Appeal Court Adjournment … Naijaonpoint.
