I read with interest, and some amusement, the article by my very good friend and learned senior Bayo Akinlade, Esq., titled “Eastern Bar Forum and Its Body Language; NBA Elections 2026.” While confidently written, the piece is fundamentally flawed in its framing and conclusions.
At its core, the article conflates zoning with adoption, treating them as interchangeable instruments of authority within the Nigerian Bar Association. They are not.
The NBA is not governed by “body language,” informal consensus, or whispered understandings in private meetings. It is governed by its Constitution, which clearly sets out eligibility, processes, and safeguards for democratic participation.
Here is the simple but critical distinction:
Zoning is binding. Endorsement is persuasive.
Zoning, where it applies, addresses rotation, balance, and fairness across regions. It determines where leadership may come from. Adoption or endorsement, however, merely expresses preference. One affects eligibility. The other seeks votes. An endorsement may strengthen a candidacy, but it does not confer legal exclusivity, nor does its absence extinguish constitutional rights.
It is therefore misleading to argue that “universal suffrage did not adopt universal contestation” in a manner that suggests that regional bodies can lawfully restrict the ballot to a single anointed candidate. While eligibility may be limited by constitutional criteria and zoning arrangements, no forum has the power to convert endorsement into a veto over other qualified aspirants.
To do so is to replace constitutional democracy with gatekeeping dressed up as tradition.
The suggestion that a candidate who fails to secure endorsement within his regional forum must abandon his ambition or be branded insubordinate is both undemocratic and unsustainable. NBA elections are not decided in one room or by one bloc. They are determined by votes cast across branches, zones, and interests nationwide. Seeking support beyond one’s immediate forum is not heresy; it is the essence of electoral politics.
The attempt to frame this issue as “Egbe versus EBF” equally collapses under scrutiny. Endorsements from any forum may carry political weight, but none carries legal finality. When endorsements are elevated above the ballot, persuasion gives way to coercion.
The analogy comparing the NBA to a family house where “parents choose the heir” is particularly misplaced. The NBA is a professional association governed by law, not a household governed by custom. If charity truly begins at home, then it must begin with fidelity to the Constitution, not with the elevation of informal arrangements over formal rules.
Ironically, the article undermines its own argument. If zoning was created to prevent domination by any one bloc, then zoning alone already serves that purpose. You do not need to suffocate competition within an eligible zone to achieve balance. Rotation and competition can, and should coexist. The antidote to domination is turn-taking, not enforced unanimity.
Scriptural references and moral admonitions about lawyers bending the law add rhetorical flourish, but they do not resolve the central issue. That issue remains straightforward:
If a lawyer is qualified under the NBA Constitution and it is the turn of that lawyer’s zone, no regional forum can lawfully disqualify him or her by withholding endorsement.
Endorsement influences opinion.
Elections determine leadership.
If stakeholders believe zoning rules require reform, the proper path is transparent constitutional amendment, not informal enforcement through pressure, intimidation, or moral blackmail.
The NBA cannot preach the rule of law in court and practise the rule of “body language” in its internal elections.
Ultimately, the only endorsement that binds everyone is the ballot.
Everything else is politics.
Eddy Okhaigbe
Past chairman
Suleja Branch
(2020-2022)
Read Also:
ABIA ON TRIAL: HOW GOVERNANCE WAS DOCKED, CONVICTED AND REDEEMED.
