A legal enthusiast, Bayonle Beyioku, has defended the intervention of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), in the controversy surrounding the forthcoming Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) national elections, insisting that the AGF’s directives are binding on all stakeholders.
In a statement titled “Lead your sheep not into perdition, dear Osigwe,” Beyioku criticised the stance of the NBA President, Afam Osigwe (SAN), over his rejection of the Attorney-General’s intervention.
He warned that the association risks plunging into a deeper crisis if the recommendations arising from the mediation process are ignored.
The development follows disputes ahead of the NBA’s July 18, 2026 national elections.
According to Beyioku, the Attorney-General convened a meeting of past NBA presidents and key stakeholders on June 11 to address growing disagreements over the electoral process and prevent an institutional crisis.
He said the meeting led to the constitution of a three-member committee comprising Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Prince Lanke Odogiyon, and Paul Usoro (SAN) to investigate the issues and propose solutions.
Beyioku noted that the committee invited memoranda from interested parties, including the three presidential candidates, the Chairman of the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA), the NBA President, and other stakeholders.
He stated that, aside from the NBA President and the Mid-West Bar Forum, all invited parties submitted memoranda and appeared before the committee, either physically or virtually.
According to him, the committee submitted its majority report on June 26, followed by a minority report on July 1, after which the Attorney-General issued directives on July 6 based on the findings.
Beyioku said the directives drew criticism from the NBA leadership, particularly after Osigwe publicly rejected them and questioned the Attorney-General’s authority during an appearance on a television programme.
He argued that the Attorney-General, as the nation’s Chief Law Officer and Chairman of the General Council of the Bar, acted within his constitutional powers in convening the stakeholders’ meeting, receiving the committee’s report, and issuing directives.
He further contended that stakeholders who participated in the June 11 meeting could not later challenge the AGF’s authority, noting that their participation amounted to acceptance of the mediation process.
According to Beyioku, the Attorney-General effectively acted as a mediator, and parties who voluntarily submitted to the process are bound by its outcome.
Rejecting claims that the NBA is merely a non-governmental organisation beyond government oversight, he argued that the association is an incorporated trustee under Nigerian law with statutory responsibilities that make its affairs matters of public interest.
He also raised concerns about the credibility of the NBA’s electoral process, citing alleged shortcomings identified by the committee and reservations reportedly expressed by some presidential candidates.
Beyioku criticised the NBA leadership’s decision to invite international observers — including the European Union, the United States Embassy, the British High Commission, Yiaga Africa, and the Transition Monitoring Group — to monitor the July 18 election.
He questioned whether similar professional bodies, such as the International Bar Association, adopt such measures for their internal elections.
He urged the NBA leadership to embrace the Attorney-General’s recommendations as an opportunity to reform its electoral system and restore confidence, rather than dismissing the intervention.
Beyioku warned that proceeding with the election without addressing the identified concerns could further undermine the credibility of the association.
He maintained that the Attorney-General’s directives remain binding on the NBA leadership, the Electoral Committee, candidates, voters, service providers, and all participants in the electoral process.
