The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has accused the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of double standards over its decision to petition the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) against lawyer Kalu Kalu for making disparaging remarks about Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, questioning why the professional body took action against the lawyer despite an earlier Court of Appeal ruling criticising the judge’s conduct.
The opposition party maintained that the NBA should be more concerned about judicial accountability than what it described as an attempt to victimise a lawyer for expressing his views on a judicial decision.
In a statement issued on Saturday, November 14, 2026, the ADC’s National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, accused the association of applying different standards to lawyers and judicial officers, warning that the NBA must not allow itself to be drawn into what the party described as a political campaign against the opposition.
“The NBA is not a political party. It must, therefore, not be seen to be behaving like a member of a political coalition against the opposition,” Abdullahi stated.
The party’s reaction followed an announcement by the NBA on Friday that its President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, had forwarded a formal petition against Kalu to the LPDC over comments he made about Justice Lifu during a television interview.
Kalu, a lawyer associated with the ADC and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, appeared on Channels Television’s Politics Today on November 11, 2026, to discuss the Federal High Court judgment delivered on November 5 in the party’s leadership dispute.
The judgment invalidated the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC and actions taken under it, raising questions about the process through which Atiku emerged as the party’s presidential candidate ahead of the 2027 general elections.
The ADC has rejected the ruling and taken steps to challenge it, while Kalu maintained during the television interview that the court’s orders did not expressly invalidate Atiku’s presidential nomination.
During the programme, Kalu made personal remarks about Justice Lifu, reportedly referring to him as a “coconut judge”.
The presenter, Seun Okinbaloye, immediately interrupted him and objected to the language, insisting that the television platform should not be used to disparage a sitting judicial officer.
Following the presenter’s objection and repeated requests that he withdraw the statement, Kalu eventually withdrew his remarks.
Reacting to the incident on Friday, the NBA President condemned the lawyer’s comments, maintaining that while legal practitioners were entitled to criticise and challenge judicial decisions, they were required to do so without resorting to personal attacks against judges.
Badejo-Okusanya referred to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, which require lawyers to uphold professional standards and maintain respect for judicial institutions.
She disclosed that a formal petition, accompanied by the relevant recording of the broadcast, had been submitted to the LPDC for consideration.
The NBA President explained that the disciplinary process would allow Kalu to respond to the allegations, while the committee would determine whether his conduct constituted professional misconduct and whether any sanction was appropriate.
However, responding to the development, the ADC questioned why the NBA had focused on the lawyer’s remarks when the Court of Appeal had previously criticised Justice Lifu’s handling of a separate case involving the deregistration of political parties.
“What has Kalu Kalu said about Justice Peter Lifu that the Court of Appeal has not already said?” Abdullahi asked.
The opposition party referred to a Court of Appeal ruling delivered on June 16, 2026, in which the appellate court criticised Justice Lifu for delivering a judgment ordering the deregistration of the ADC and four other political parties despite an earlier appellate order staying proceedings.
According to the party, the Court of Appeal described the judge’s conduct as “judicial impertinence” and “judicial rascality” and suspended the enforcement of the deregistration order.
The earlier proceedings concerned the proposed deregistration of five political parties: the African Democratic Congress, Accord, Action Alliance, Action Peoples Party and Zenith Labour Party.
The appellate court subsequently overturned the judgment on July 28, 2026, holding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
The ADC relied on those earlier judicial findings to question the NBA’s decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Kalu over his criticism of Justice Lifu.
However, the earlier Court of Appeal proceedings concerned a different case from the ADC leadership dispute decided by Justice Lifu on November 5, 2026.
The appellate court’s findings in the deregistration matter did not determine the validity of the November leadership judgment or establish that the later decision resulted from political interference.
Nevertheless, Abdullahi maintained that the NBA should demonstrate greater concern for judicial accountability rather than concentrating on what he described as the victimisation of a lawyer who expressed his political views.
The ADC accused the professional association of risking its credibility by appearing unwilling to confront alleged misconduct within the judiciary while pursuing disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer who criticised a judge.
The party also alleged that some lawyers and judges were collaborating with politically connected individuals to undermine the administration of justice.
However, the statement did not provide evidence establishing such collaboration or demonstrating that the NBA’s petition against Kalu was connected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Abdullahi argued that although lawyers were expected to demonstrate restraint when addressing judicial officers, respect for the judiciary should not prevent them from speaking against conduct they considered improper.
“We agree that lawyers must exercise restraint. But there is no respectful way to address evil, and the NBA cannot teach us one,” he stated.
The ADC maintained that professional responsibility should not be interpreted in a manner that prevents lawyers from questioning judicial decisions or raising concerns about the administration of justice.
It warned that the NBA’s involvement in the controversy could create the impression that the association was taking sides in the political disagreements surrounding the ADC’s leadership and the candidacy of Atiku Abubakar.
The party consequently urged the NBA to avoid conduct that could undermine public confidence in its independence as a professional association.
The NBA, however, had maintained in its earlier statement that judicial accountability and professional discipline were not mutually exclusive.
According to the association, demanding accountability from judges did not prevent it from requiring lawyers to comply with the professional standards governing their conduct.
The NBA’s position was that lawyers could challenge judicial decisions through appropriate legal processes while remaining accountable for personal attacks or conduct considered inconsistent with professional ethics.
The association also clarified that the petition against Kalu did not amount to a disciplinary finding, as the LPDC would determine whether his comments constituted misconduct after considering the material submitted and his response.
The NBA’s statement preceded the ADC’s latest allegations of double standards and political bias.
The post “The NBA Is Not A Political Party” — ADC Warns Bar Against Joining Political Campaign, Faults Disciplinary Petition Against Kalu Kalu appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.
