By Abdullahi Muhammad Muhammad, Esq.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) occupies a unique and indispensable position in Nigeria’s constitutional democracy. Beyond being a professional association for legal practitioners, it has, over the decades, established itself as one of the country’s most respected voices in the defence of the rule of law, constitutionalism, judicial independence, and the protection of fundamental human rights.
Whenever democratic values are threatened or citizens’ rights are violated, the NBA is often expected to speak firmly and act decisively. This expectation raises an important question that deserves thoughtful reflection:
Can a lawyer serving in the public bar conveniently and independently occupy the sensitive offices of Branch Chairman or Branch Secretary of the Nigerian Bar Association?
The NBA as the Guardian of the Rule of Law
The NBA is widely regarded as the conscience of the legal profession. Although it is not a political organization, it consistently serves as a pressure group committed to ensuring that governments at all levels operate within the boundaries of the Constitution and the law.
Its interventions frequently include:
- Defending judicial independence;
- Speaking against abuse of executive powers;
- Protecting the rights of citizens;
- Condemning unlawful arrests, detentions, and human rights violations;
- Advocating for good governance and accountability.
These responsibilities often place the Association in direct opposition to actions or policies of government institutions whenever those actions are inconsistent with constitutional principles.
The Position of Lawyers in the Public Bar
Lawyers employed by the Federal Government, State Governments, Ministries, Departments, Agencies, or other public institutions owe statutory and professional obligations to their employers. As public servants, they are expected to advance and defend the legal interests of government institutions.
Their duties require loyalty, confidentiality, discipline, and adherence to the directives of constituted authorities, provided those directives remain within the confines of the law.
While many public officers discharge these responsibilities with remarkable professionalism and integrity, the nature of public service inevitably creates situations where institutional loyalty may conflict with the independent advocacy expected of NBA leadership.
The Potential Conflict of Interest
The concern is not about the competence, intelligence, or integrity of lawyers in government service. Indeed, many are among the finest legal minds in the profession.
Rather, the issue is whether the office itself creates circumstances capable of compromising, or appearing to compromise, the independence of the Association.
Consider situations where:
- The NBA Branch must publicly condemn actions of a State Government;
- Lawyers are required to boycott courts in protest against executive interference;
- The Association initiates litigation against a government agency;
- The Branch organizes protests or public demonstrations over violations of constitutional rights.
A Branch Chairman or Secretary who is simultaneously employed by the same government whose actions are under scrutiny may face significant institutional, professional, or administrative constraints. Even where such a leader is personally willing to act independently, there may be legitimate public concerns about perceived conflicts of interest.
Leadership in the NBA demands not only actual independence but also the appearance of independence.
The Importance of Institutional Independence
The effectiveness of the NBA depends largely on public confidence in its neutrality and courage.
Its leaders must be able to:
- Speak fearlessly against injustice;
- Challenge unlawful governmental actions without hesitation;
- Represent the collective interests of lawyers without external influence;
- Preserve the credibility of the Association before the public.
Where there exists any relationship capable of creating divided loyalties, questions may arise regarding whether the Association can discharge its watchdog role without fear or favour.
A Call for Reflection
Against this backdrop, there is a respectable argument that lawyers serving in the public bar should voluntarily refrain from seeking or occupying particularly sensitive leadership positions such as Branch Chairman or Branch Secretary.
This is not a criticism of their professional ability or commitment to the legal profession. Rather, it is a call to preserve the institutional independence, credibility, and moral authority of the Nigerian Bar Association.
By allowing lawyers in private practice or those whose professional responsibilities do not directly tie them to government institutions to occupy such positions, the NBA may be better positioned to speak boldly whenever constitutional principles or citizens’ rights are threatened.
Conclusion
The question of whether lawyers in government service should lead NBA branches remains one on which reasonable minds may differ. There are persuasive arguments on both sides of the debate.
However, from the standpoint of preserving the NBA’s independence and avoiding both actual and perceived conflicts of interest, it is arguable that the offices of Branch Chairman and Branch Secretary are best occupied by lawyers who can exercise their leadership responsibilities without institutional constraints arising from public employment.
As members of a profession built upon independence, integrity, and the fearless defence of justice, this conversation deserves thoughtful engagement from all stakeholders.
God bless the Nigerian Bar Association.
About the Author
