The Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) directive to banks on enforcing the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order, 2023, has sparked debate. While legal scholar Sylvester Udemezue argues that the move is ineffective without a self-executing framework, others see it as a practical step toward enforcing fair legal fees. This rejoinder examines the merits of the NBA’s approach, emphasizing the need for both immediate action and long-term reform.
- INTRODUCTION
- On 13th March, 2025, Mr. Sylvester Udemezue published an interesting critique titled “NBA Remuneration Committee’s Directives To Banks On Implementation Of Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order, 2023, Is A Waste Of Time; NBA Should Do First Things First”. The said publication featured on BarristerNG.
- As a starter, it is important to commend Mr. Udemezue for the effort and time he put into the work. Although, a more careful reading of the remuneration directives and the patience to make enquiries from any member of the committee would have made the said publication needless.
- Udemezue argues that the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) directive to banks to enforce the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order, 2023, is a futile, “surface-scratching” measure, asserting that only an impregnable, self-executing Order can address Nigeria’s lawyer remuneration crisis. Again, whilst his passion for reform and call for robust legal design are commendable, his dismissal of the NBA’s current efforts utterly undermines their practical value.
- This rejoinder interrogates Udemezue’s arguments paragraph-by-paragraph, offering a counter perspective that lauds the directive as a positive and pragmatic step without discounting his radical view as a complementary goal in progress. Albeit, I understand that there are other more appropriate channels to convey his thoughts and advice, being a senior member of the bar, I still aim to accommodate and refine same by proposing a path where immediate action and long-term reform co-exist to strengthen our dear profession of utmost nobility.
- In the spirit of Udemezue’s own stated intent, this response seeks not just to critique, but to spark constructive dialogue for the NBA’s next steps for positive change and joint progress. To this end, I have responded in numbered paragraphs, below.
Nigerian Bar Association Releases Comprehensive Remuneration Order for 2023
- A REJOINDER
Paragraph 1
- Whilst Udemezue labels the NBA’s directive to banks as “surface-scratching,” this critique indeed underestimates its strategic intent as to progress. The directive so issued is not meant to be a standalone fix but a positive and practical step to enforce the Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order, 2023, within the current framework. The aim for an “impregnable and self-executing” Order is a noble long-term goal, but it is not a prerequisite for immediate action. The NBA is tackling an urgent issue – underpayment of lawyers – using available tools, like leveraging banks’ role in financial oversight.
- Therefore, a quick indictment of this immediate positive step as doomed to fail – ignores the value of incremental progress. It is often said that reality demands both vision and pragmatism, and not just the former. One error of judgment that is eminently discernible from Udemezue’s critique is that he forgot that banks are stakeholders in matters relating to fee, as they engage legal practitioners for diverse needs and represent the channel through which lawyers earn some fees. Does Udemezue suggest that a sector being served by legal practitioners does not deserve to know the new regime as to fee or the role it is expected to play?
Paragraph 2
- Udemezue’s metaphor of a toothless dog is vivid, but it overstates the Order’s weakness, while deliberately jettisoning its telling strengths. The 2023 Order endorsed to set minimum professional fees for legal practitioners, is indeed not toothless, albeit under-enforced, – a clear distinction worth noting but which Udemezue has failed to acknowledge. Upon my appraisal of the Order and the prevailing circumstances, I found that the provisions of the Order are appropriate and enforceable, culminating to the recent joint efforts-cum-positive steps being taken for adequate enforcement.
- Self-executing provisions may actually sound appealing, but legal frameworks often rely on active enforcement, not just mere design on the face of it. The Order’s “bark” (its clear standards) is a foundation; the “bite” comes from implementation efforts like the NBA’s directive under reference. As a matter of fact, expecting instant impregnability ignores how laws evolve through practice and amendment, not just full perfection at the inception of same. However, dismissing the recent NBA’s directive without fairly assessing its insightful steps towards progress is equally misguided and not a stuff of informed criticism.
Paragraph 3
- The claim that “over 98 percent” of lawyers flout the Order is striking but unsubstantiated with any data; it is a mere rhetorical flourish. Even if true, widespread non-compliance does not render the NBA’s efforts futile; it only emphasizes the need for enforcement mechanisms, precisely what the directive to banks aims to bolster. Udemezue’s insistence on an impregnable Order first assumes amendments alone can change behaviour, yet enforcement often drives compliance as much as the Rules. Targeting banks at this stage is not irrelevant, they tend to handle transactions where fees are paid, making them allies, not bystanders, but active players – the served, meant to pay the one serving. The NBA’s “precious time” is not wasted; it is only devoted in testing a lever for change.
Paragraph 4
- Udemezue’s question about banks’ accountability to the NBA misunderstands and completely misframes the issue. The directive is not about exerting legal authority over banks but respectful collaboration in progress. A direct effort at educating and informing the bank about what now obtains, as distinct from whatever the norm was. Banks are indeed not “servants” but stakeholders in a financial ecosystem where lawyers’ fees flow.
- The Legal Practitioners Act empowers the NBA to regulate remuneration; thus, involving banks is an extension of that mandate, not an overreach as Udemezue placed it. No specific clause may compel banks, but their cooperation can be secured through advocacy or regulatory pressure via bodies like the Central Bank of Nigeria. The approach is not faulty, but creative within constraints. I enjoin Mr. Udemezue to have a second reading, now, more carefully, with an open mind.
Paragraph 5
- I acknowledge that the Order does not assign banks enforcement roles, and that lawyers, not banks, violate it by undercharging clients. But Udemezue seems to completely miss the point there. Banks are not the violators; they are enablers of compliance. By monitoring transactions, banks can flag discrepancies against the minimums specified in the Order, indirectly pressuring lawyers to strictly adhere. It is therefore not about banks policing lawyers but creating a system where undercutting becomes harder or completely inoperative. This may not be the whole solution, but definitely not a misstep.
Paragraph 6
- The call for “out-of-the-box” thinking is fair, and Udemezue’s offer to help is welcome. However, amending the Order to be “impregnable and self-executing” is not mutually exclusive with current efforts, but complementary. The NBA’s directive to banks is creative, using external partners to bolster enforcement. Waiting for a perfect amendment delays progress when lawyers need relief.
Paragraph 7
- The analogy to election lawsuit timelines is compelling, but misleading. The nuances have no point of confluence. The laws, such as the Electoral Act, are indeed strict and self-enforcing, with automatic dismissal for late filings. But this comparison oversimplifies. Election laws govern a narrow, high-stakes process with clear deadlines; whilst remuneration spans diverse, daily transactions, making self-execution harder to design.
- In this wise, the Order could adopt stricter penalties such as license suspension for undercharging, but instant consequences are trickier and more complicated in a market-driven profession. The NBA’s bank directive is not redundant, but an interim bridge to tougher rules, not a rejection of them.
Paragraph 8
- Udemezue’s generalization that Nigerians inherently disobey laws is harsh and risks stereotyping. Compliance varies by context. An exemplary of this is how tax evasion persists, yet road traffic fines work when enforced. Impregnable laws are ideal, but not all issues fit that mold; remuneration depends on client-lawyer dynamics, not just lawyer behaviour. Even Udemezue’s piece on the subject is not impregnable, neither is this rejoinder. Compulsion is one tool, but education, incentives, and monitoring such as the bank directive, can also shift habits. The NBA is adapting to reality, not just wishing for obedience.
Paragraph 9
- We acknowledge that the issue of remuneration remains a pressing challenge. Lawyers’ stagnant fees amid inflation and current economic reality of the country, are unsustainable. The NBA understands this, evidenced by the 2023 Order and subsequent actions being taken. Udemezue’s urgency is valid, but his dismissal of current efforts as unserious and time-wasting is uncharitable. The directive to banks shows intent; it is not the final word but a start. The NBA should heed his call for stronger laws, yet not abandon practical steps in the meantime.
Paragraph 10
- The branch committees, set up in 2024 under Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, aimed to localize enforcement, which I consider as a very ambitious move. Udemezue’s claim of “absolutely nowhere” lacks evidence; progress may be slow, not absent. Committees alone cannot fix systemic issues, but they are part of a broader strategy and meaningful planning, including the bank directive under reference. His argument that an impregnable Order negates their need suggests that perfection eliminates oversight, which I respectfully beg to differ. Even self-executing laws need monitoring bodies
Paragraph 11
- Calling the directive “unnecessary” and predicting failure is premature at this stage, and it is quite unfortunate. Pragmatism is not just amending laws, but actively using available tools or institutions, like banks, to nudge compliance. Udemezue’s focus on tying lawyers’ hands via amendments is valid but not the sole path. It is without any doubt that lawyers flout the Order, but clients enable it by proposing low fees.
- Banks can disrupt that cycle by flagging underpayments. In light of these, the NBA is not shouting “Eureka” but it is experimenting to achieve better results. The Obegolu-led Committee never said it has arrived, it is only saying something can be done and is being done. Sagacity lies in combining short-term tactics with long-term fixes, not betting everything on one grand reform.
NBA Remuneration Committee Urges Banks to Comply with Legal Practitioners Remuneration Order 2023
Paragraph 12
- We fully understand Udemezue’s stance as a concerning member of the NBA, and his advice for the NBA not to reject good wisdom. Ironically, he risks rejecting the NBA’s efforts without fully weighing their merit. The directive to banks may not be perfect, but it is not avoiding reality – it is seriously engaging it. The consequence of ignoring underpayment is a weakened profession; the NBA’s actions, however imperfect they may seem, confront that. Wisdom here means dialogue, not just critique. Like said earlier, the input of the “impregnable and self-executing” laws could be complementary, and not oppose or replace the current efforts of the NBA.
Paragraph 13
- Commendably, Udemezue’s intent to trigger constructive discussions is achieved. No doubt, his critique has raised valid questions about enforcement. I agree that constructive debate is vital, moving forward, and his focus on a stronger Order is a worthy contribution. But the NBA’s current moves are not antithetical to that goal, in fact, they are parallel efforts towards progress. Let us discuss how to blend his vision with practical steps, not pit them against each other. The profession benefits when critique meets collaboration to achieve better results.
- FINAL NOTE
- Udemezue’s passion for better remuneration is clear, and his call for an “impregnable and self-executing” Order is a solid long-term aim. Equally, the NBA’s directive to banks is not a waste, it is a pragmatic step forward. Thus, both can co-exist by amending the law and still test enforcement tools.
- The profession needs positive action now, not just blueprints for tomorrow. Let us come together to improve, and not completely reject.
NBA REMUNERATION ORDER: REJOINDER TO SYLVESTER UDEMEZUE
