A fresh controversy has emerged within Nigeria’s legal community following a petition by the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Osigwe (SAN), seeking the removal of senior lawyer, Chief Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), from the Body of Benchers.
The petition was reportedly filed before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee and the Body of Benchers.
Okutepa, in a reaction, however, accused the NBA President of abuse of office and misuse of power.
Reacting on X (formerly Twitter) to the development, Okutepa said, “I am not afraid of your manipulations,” insisting that the move against him was both unjustified and targeted.
He alleged that the NBA President went beyond filing a petition and engaged in actions aimed at undermining his standing within the legal profession.
“The NBA President did not stop at just filing the petition against me as the 1st claimant in one of the cases.
“But in the most unfortunate abuse of power and corrupt use of office and power, Mr Osigwe SAN proceeded to use his office and position to lobby those who have responsibilities to educate him not to do so,” he said.
Okutepa further claimed that the alleged lobbying was specifically intended to block his reappointment to the Body of Benchers.
“He sought to cause my name to be removed from the list of those to be re-appointed as members of the Body of Benchers,” he added.
The senior advocate maintained that he would not be intimidated by the actions, stressing that he remained committed to upholding the rule of law and integrity within the profession.
“I am not afraid. No amount of pressure or manipulation will deter me from standing for what is right,” he said.
Responding to Okutepa’s tweet, Osigwe defended his petition against Okutepa, insisting that the move was rooted in “professional accountability” rather than any form of witch-hunt.
In a strongly worded response to Okutepa’s earlier allegations, Osigwe dismissed claims of abuse of office and manipulation, stating, “Nothing can be farther from the truth.”
He said, “I read your write-up with more amusement than anger,” adding that he was compelled to respond publicly “for the fear that your misleading public narrative may be believed and thereby portray me as one guilty of your allegations.”
Osigwe clarified that the petition before the LPDC was not about Okutepa’s right to take up a legal brief or challenge the constitution of the Electoral Committee of the NBA.
“That right is unquestionable and firmly rooted in our adversarial system.
“The issue, rather, concerns the manner in which that right was exercised and whether, in the course of doing so, the ethical obligations owed to the court, particularly in ex parte proceedings, were fully observed,” he said.
According to him, the petition arose from “a serious professional concern deserving examination,” particularly in relation to Suit No. I/221/2026 and the procurement of ex parte orders affecting the NBA’s electoral process.
Osigwe maintained that the ECNBA was duly constituted at a National Executive Committee meeting in Benin, noting that the process followed established procedures.
“A motion for the constitution of the ECNBA was formally moved, seconded, and adopted by NEC.
“Chief Okutepa (SAN) was present throughout the proceedings and actively participated,” Osigwe stated.
He added that a communiqué issued after the meeting reflected the decision and “circulated widely within the Bar and remained unchallenged,” while video recordings also captured the proceedings.
“These materials underscore the importance of examining whether all material facts known to counsel were disclosed when the ex parte orders were sought,” he said.
The NBA President raised concerns that the ex parte application was pursued without disclosing that both counsel and the claimant were present at the meeting where the ECNBA was constituted.
He said, “This raises an important professional question. Does the failure to disclose those facts in an ex parte application not call for scrutiny?”
He stressed that lawyers were bound by strict ethical duties, particularly in ex parte proceedings.
“A lawyer is not permitted to rely solely on client instructions where he knows, or ought reasonably to know, that material facts are being withheld or misrepresented.
“The obligation is even stricter in ex parte proceedings, where the court depends entirely on the utmost good faith of counsel,” he said.
Rejecting claims of victimisation, he said, “It is incorrect to frame the petition as intimidation or victimisation. The LPDC exists precisely to examine allegations of professional misconduct.”
Addressing allegations that he influenced Okutepa’s removal from the Body of Benchers, Osigwe said the NBA merely exercised its discretion.
“The NBA exercised its discretion not to recommend his renewal in light of the pending petition,” he explained, adding that, “It would have been inconsistent to recommend for re-appointment a person whose conduct had been referred for disciplinary scrutiny.”
He emphasised that the issue went beyond personalities and centres on preserving ethical standards within the profession.
“This matter is not about personalities. It is about preserving professional ethics, particularly where ex parte orders are invoked in circumstances capable of affecting the electoral process of the Association,” he said.
Osigwe concluded that the matter should be left to the appropriate disciplinary process.
“The petition is an institutional step taken in good faith. It is not a personal attack. It is not a political contest.
“The determination of these issues should properly lie with the disciplinary process, not in the arena of public debate,” Osigwe added.
In this article