Tensions surrounding the forthcoming NBA Abuja Branch (Unity Bar) elections escalated at the Branch’s general meeting held on Friday, 5 June 2026, as members reportedly sought to raise concerns regarding the controversial voters list but were unable to secure substantive discussion on the matter.
The election, scheduled for 10 June 2026, has been the subject of growing controversy following the publication of a voters list containing only 239 eligible voters from a Branch membership running into several thousands. Since the publication of the list, numerous members have expressed concerns regarding alleged omissions, the treatment of virtual attendance records, and the process adopted by the Electoral Committee in compiling the register.
A major point of concern remains the apparent failure of the Electoral Committee to comply with the provisions of the NBA Uniform Bye-Laws requiring the publication of the voters list not later than fourteen (14) days before the election.
Members have argued that the publication of the list barely days before the election deprived affected lawyers of a reasonable opportunity to verify their status, challenge omissions, and seek redress.
Legal practitioners within the Branch have further questioned whether any subsequent publication of a revised or fresh voters list can cure what they describe as an existing constitutional infraction, given that the election is scheduled to hold on 10 June 2026.
The controversy has also been fueled by reports that the published voters list contained the name of a deceased member. While several members acknowledged that such an occurrence could result from human error, they nevertheless argued that the inclusion of a deceased person on a list containing only 239 accredited voters raises legitimate questions regarding the thoroughness of the verification process adopted by the Electoral Committee.
According to concerned members, if the exercise had been subjected to adequate scrutiny and validation, such an error would ordinarily have been detected and corrected before publication.
At the general meeting, several members reportedly sought an opportunity to discuss issues relating to the election and the voters list. However, Branch Chairman, Mr. Steve Emelieze, is said to have advised members against discussing election-related matters during the meeting.
Members present at the meeting expressed disappointment that the concerns surrounding the voters register were not formally addressed, particularly given the widespread debate that has followed its publication.
One of the major interventions reportedly came from Mr. John Eshiet, who moved a motion urging the Branch leadership to adopt the physical attendance registers signed by members during Branch meetings as a basis for resolving disputes concerning omitted names on the voters list.
According to members present, the proposal was aimed at ensuring that lawyers who genuinely attended the constitutionally required number of meetings would not be disenfranchised due to alleged discrepancies in the compilation of the register.
Supporters of the motion argued that the attendance registers constituted primary records of participation at Branch meetings and could assist in verifying the eligibility of members whose names were omitted from the published voters list.
However, according to accounts from members present at the meeting, the motion was not entertained for discussion. Instead, concerns were raised that the Electoral Committee was not invited to present a report or provide explanations regarding the methodology used in compiling the voters list, the exclusion of numerous members, the inclusion of allegedly ineligible names, or the treatment of virtual attendance records.
Several members reportedly expected the Electoral Committee to address questions concerning the publication of the voters list, the accreditation criteria adopted, the status of virtual attendance records, and the constitutional concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the timing of the publication. Those expectations, however, were not met.
Adding to the controversy, the Branch Chairman reportedly informed members during the meeting that a new voters list would be published.
While some members welcomed the prospect of further review, others immediately questioned the constitutional implications of such a move, noting that any fresh publication occurring only a few days before the election would further compound concerns regarding compliance with the constitutional requirement that the voters register be published at least fourteen days before the election date.
Witnesses at the meeting alleged that rather than permitting extensive discussion on the electoral issues, the meeting proceeded to a motion for adjournment, effectively bringing proceedings to a close without substantive deliberation on the election-related concerns raised by members.
The development has further fueled concerns among sections of the Branch membership, with some members arguing that the general meeting represented an important opportunity to address growing questions surrounding the electoral process and restore confidence in the forthcoming election.
Observers note that with only days remaining before the scheduled election, concerns relating to voter eligibility, recognition of virtual attendance, access to attendance records, alleged disenfranchisement of members, and compliance with the constitutional timeline for publication of the voters list remain unresolved.
As of the time of filing this report, neither the Branch Chairman nor the Electoral Committee had publicly responded to the concerns raised by members regarding the conduct of the meeting, the inclusion of a deceased member on the voters list, the treatment of virtual attendance records, or the constitutional issues surrounding the publication of the register.
The forthcoming election is expected to determine the next leadership of one of the largest and most influential branches of the Nigerian Bar Association, even as calls continue to grow for greater transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional requirements in the electoral process.
