The Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division, on Wednesday heard the appeal arising from the dispute over the 2026 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) National Elections after rejecting an attempt to terminate the proceedings on the strength of a document issued by the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation (HAGF), Prince Lateef O. Fagbemi, SAN.
The Court held that the document relied upon by the 1-4, (Ibrahim Lawal & Ors) and 8 Respondents (AGF) respectively.
could not substitute for the Terms of Settlement which parties had previously represented would be filed before the Court.
The appeal, CA/IB/110/2026 between *Mr. Aham Ejelam, SAN vs Ors.* and Ibrahim Lawal, Esq. & Ors., had earlier been adjourned at the joint request of the parties. At the previous siting, counsel informed the court that discussions were ongoing and sought what was described as a final adjournment to conclude settlement negotiations. The understanding before the Court was that, upon resumption, parties would either present duly executed Terms of Settlement or proceed with the hearing of the appeal.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, 8th July 2026, counsel to the Appellants, Yusuff Raimi, Esq, leading M.F. Ajao, Esq. and I.D. Oladimeji, Esq, informed the Court that no settlement had been reached on the part of the Appellants and that they were ready to proceed with the hearing of the appeal.
In response, Counsel to the 1st to 4th Respondents informed the Court that they had filed an Affidavit of Facts on 7 July 2026, attaching a document titled:
“Directions and Outcome of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation, Prince Lateef O. Fagbemi, SAN, on the Report of the Three-Man Committee Set Up to Look into the Causes of the Present Conflict Within the Nigerian Bar Association, Particularly on the Way Forward in Matters Relating to the Upcoming National Elections of National Officers of the Nigerian Bar Association.”
Counsel also exhibited a Notice of Discontinuance allegedly filed before the lower court and argued that, by reason of the Attorney General’s intervention and the contents of the said document, the appeal had become academic and ought not to proceed.
The Court, however, was not persuaded.
The Justices reminded counsel that the matter had been adjourned specifically for either a final report of settlement or, in the absence of settlement, for the hearing of the appeal. The Court repeatedly requested the Respondents to produce the Terms of Settlement allegedly reached by the parties.
Rather than present any settlement agreement executed by the parties, Counsel to the 1-4, & 8 respondent, continued to rely solely on the Attorney General’s document.
The Court was unequivocal that the document titled “Directions and Outcome of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation…” regardless of its title or contents, could not be equated with or substituted for Terms of Settlement recognized in law.
When Counsel was unable to place any Terms of Settlement before the Court, the Justices declined the invitation to terminate the appeal on the basis of the Attorney General’s directive.
Counsel for the 5th and 6th Respondents aligned with the Appellants, informing the Court that they had not filed any Respondents’ Brief opposing the appeal.
Counsel for the 8th Respondent, T.A Gazali SAN also relied on the same Attorney General’s document, submitting that the parties had effectively settled the dispute through the intervention of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation. However, when questioned by the Court on the specific Terms of Settlement reached by the parties, Counsel again referred only to the Attorney General’s directive.
The Court maintained its position that a directive or administrative decision could not replace a valid Terms of Settlement executed by the parties.
Having found that no Terms of Settlement existed before it, the Court directed that the appeal should proceed to hearing as earlier scheduled.
Thereafter, Counsel for the Appellants adopted the Appellants’ Brief of Argument together with the Reply Brief filed in response to the 1st to 4th Respondents’ Brief.
In a significant development, Counsel for the 1st to 4th Respondents declined to adopt their Respondents’ Brief of Argument already filed before the Court. Instead, they insisted that the appeal had become academic by reason of the Affidavit of Facts and the Attorney General’s document, adopting only the Affidavit while refusing to argue their substantive brief.
No other Respondent advanced arguments on the merits of the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellants then drew the Court’s attention to Order 19 Rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, urging the Court to invoke its powers by deeming the Respondents’ Brief of Argument as duly adopted and argued notwithstanding their refusal to adopt it in open court.
After hearing the submissions of counsel, the Court reserved judgment, indicating that the date for delivery would be communicated to all parties.
The proceedings marked a significant development in the appeal. Despite sustained efforts to persuade the Court to terminate the proceedings based on the Attorney General’s “Directions and Outcome” document, the Court insisted that what had been represented at the previous adjournment was the filing of Terms of Settlement, not the presentation of a unilateral directive or administrative recommendation.
Finding no legally cognizable Terms of Settlement before it, the Court rejected the invitation to treat the Attorney General’s document as disposing of the appeal, proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits, and ultimately reserved judgment. The Court’s decision leaves the substantive issues raised in the appeal for determination in its forthcoming judgment.
Read More:
Technical Assessment Rejects NIN for NBA Elections, Says Existing Authentication Is More Secure
