A fresh dispute within Nigeria’s legal community has drawn attention to issues of professional ethics and accountability, as the President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Afam Osigwe, defended the association’s decision to file a petition against senior lawyer, Jibrin Okutepa.
Osigwe, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said the petition submitted to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) was based on concerns about professional conduct and not driven by personal differences or political motives.
The controversy began after the NBA filed a petition against Okutepa over his role in a court case challenging the composition of the NBA Electoral Committee. The case, identified as Suit No. I/221/2026, reportedly led to ex parte orders restraining the committee from carrying out its duties.
Ex parte orders are court decisions made without hearing from all parties involved. Because of this, lawyers are expected to present all relevant facts honestly, as the court relies heavily on their integrity in such situations.
The orders in this case had a major effect on the NBA’s electoral process, raising concerns within the association about how the case was handled and the information presented before the court.
In a statement shared on his official X (formerly Twitter) account, Osigwe rejected claims that the petition was an abuse of office or an attempt to target Okutepa.
“I read your write-up with more amusement than anger. Nothing can be farther from the truth,” he said, responding to criticisms circulating in the legal community.
According to him, the issue is not about whether Okutepa had the right to take up the case or challenge the Electoral Committee. He acknowledged that every lawyer has the right to represent clients and pursue legal actions.
Instead, he said the focus is on whether the lawyer followed ethical rules in handling the case, especially during the ex parte proceedings.
“The petition is not about whether Chief Okutepa had the right to accept a brief. That right is unquestionable,” Osigwe explained.
“The issue concerns the manner in which that right was exercised and whether ethical obligations to the court were fully observed.”
A key concern raised by the NBA president is whether all relevant facts were presented to the court when the ex parte orders were obtained.
Osigwe said records from a National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting of the NBA, held in Benin, showed that the Electoral Committee was properly constituted through a formal process. According to him, a motion was moved, seconded, and adopted at the meeting.
He added that Okutepa was present at the meeting and even participated actively, including presenting a report shortly after the committee was approved.
“The records of the meeting clearly indicate that the committee was properly constituted,” he said.
Osigwe also revealed that video recordings of the meeting exist and show the discussions and decisions that led to the creation of the Electoral Committee.
These details, he argued, raise important questions about whether the court was fully informed of all material facts.
“The ex parte application was prosecuted without disclosure of the material fact that both lead counsel and the first claimant were present at the meeting,” he said.
The NBA president stressed that lawyers have a duty to be truthful and transparent, especially in cases where the other party is not present in court.
He pointed to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which guide the behaviour of lawyers in Nigeria. According to these rules, lawyers must not rely only on what their clients tell them if they are aware that some facts are missing or misrepresented.
“The obligation is even stricter in ex parte proceedings, where the court depends entirely on the good faith of counsel,” Osigwe said.
He warned that failure to meet these standards could weaken trust in the legal system and affect the fairness of judicial decisions.
Osigwe insisted that the petition to the LPDC should not be seen as a personal attack or an attempt to intimidate Okutepa.
“It is incorrect to frame the petition as intimidation or victimisation,” he said. “It is a professional inquiry.”
He explained that the LPDC exists to handle allegations of misconduct among lawyers and to ensure that standards are maintained within the profession.
By referring the matter to the committee, the NBA, according to him, is simply following due process.
He also addressed claims that he tried to influence Okutepa’s removal from the Body of Benchers, an important body in Nigeria’s legal system responsible for regulating legal education and discipline.
Osigwe said the NBA only chose not to recommend Okutepa for renewal due to the pending petition, noting that it would have been inconsistent to support his reappointment while also questioning his conduct.
In his response, Jibrin Okutepa denied any wrongdoing and criticised the NBA leadership. He described the petition as an attempt to manipulate the situation and insisted that he acted within the law.
The senior lawyer said he is not afraid of the disciplinary process and is ready to defend himself before the LPDC.
His reaction has added another layer to the dispute, with members of the legal community expressing different opinions on the matter.
The dispute between the NBA leadership and a senior advocate highlights ongoing debates about accountability and discipline within Nigeria’s legal profession.
The NBA, as the umbrella body for lawyers, plays a key role in maintaining standards and ensuring that members follow ethical rules. At the same time, senior lawyers like Okutepa hold significant influence and are expected to uphold the highest standards of practice.
As the matter moves to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, attention will be focused on how the case is handled and what it means for the legal profession.
For many, the key issue is not just about one lawyer or one case, but about the broader need for accountability and trust in Nigeria’s justice system.
Osigwe’s defence of the petition reflects the NBA’s position that no lawyer is above the rules, while Okutepa’s response underscores the importance of fair hearing and due process.