By Sir. Chidi Udekwe
The recent publication of the voters list by the NBA Abuja Branch (Unity Bar) Electoral Committee for the election scheduled on 10th June 2026 has once again exposed the recurring decimal of electoral manipulations and irregularities that have plagued our Branch elections. Out of a membership strength of over 10,000 lawyers, only 239 names were accredited as eligible voters. This staggering disparity is not a mere clerical error; it is a calculated disenfranchisement that raises grave concerns about the integrity, diligence, and transparency of the Electoral Committee. To exclude more than nine thousand members from exercising their constitutional right to vote is to strip the Branch of its democratic essence and reduce the process to a hollow ritual.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the NBA Uniform Bye‑Law regarding attendance at meetings as a basis for accreditation, the accredited number is a far cry from what should be obtainable in view of the actual membership strength of the Branch. The scale of exclusion is so disproportionate that it calls into question not only the Committee’s diligence but also its motives. Such a drastic pruning of the voters list compromises confidence in the Committee’s impartiality and erodes trust as well as casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of any leadership that emerges from this tainted exercise. The implication is clear: an election conducted on the basis of such selective accreditation cannot command respect, cannot inspire unity, and cannot stand as a credible reflection of the will of the Unity Bar.
Constitutionally, the Committee’s conduct flagrantly violates the NBA Uniform Bar Law. Section 15(1) is explicit: every member who has attended meetings within the twelve calendar months prior to the election is entitled to be included in the voters list. Yet, many active members who regularly attend meetings, colleagues who sit side by side, contribute to deliberations, and participate in the Branch’s comradery, were shockingly excluded. In contrast, the name of a deceased member and individuals who attended meeting once and those absent from Branch meetings for years were mysteriously included. This inversion of logic and fairness is not only irregular but deeply insulting to the collective intelligence of the Branch.
Similarly, Section 15(3) requires that the final list of eligible voters be compiled and published not later than fourteen (14) days before the election. The Committee’s rushed and tactical publication, timed to frustrate objections and cut off debate at the Branch’s general meeting, falls short of this statutory requirement. By deliberately narrowing the window for complaints and refusing to provide digital channels for submission, the Committee has effectively silenced members outside jurisdiction and those unable to attend physically. The implication of this violation is profound: it strips members of their constitutional right to challenge irregularities, denies them due process, and entrenches a culture of impunity.
Fundamentally, the aforementioned violations represent a direct breach of a constitutional safeguard designed to protect the democratic rights of members. When constitutional provisions are ignored, the legitimacy of the entire electoral process collapses, and the authority of any leadership emerging from such a process is fatally compromised. This is not a matter to be trivialized with the cliché “go to court.” The sanctity of the Branch’s constitution is not a technical dispute for litigation alone; it is the bedrock of our collective trust. Courts may adjudicate conflicts, but they cannot restore the moral authority lost when members are deliberately disenfranchised and constitutional safeguards are ignored. What is at stake here is not merely legality, but legitimacy, the credibility of the Unity Bar itself and the integrity of the profession we represent.
In effect, the Committee has substituted its own will for the rule of law, eroding not only the credibility of the election but also the sanctity of the NBA’s constitutional framework. This selective inclusion and exclusion smacks of manipulation, disenfranchisement, and a calculated attempt to control the electoral outcome. It is not an administrative oversight; it is a deliberate act that subverts the very foundation of democratic participation within the Unity Bar.
Instructively, since its inauguration, the Electoral Committee has failed to provide any report at the floor of the general meeting, only sparingly communicating through notices and leaving members completely in the dark about any additional modalities and criteria for the election. Now, instead of engaging the Branch openly, the Committee issued a short and restrictive timeline for raising complaints against the voters list, with no provision for virtual or email submissions. In an era where digital communication is the norm, this exclusionary approach effectively disenfranchises members outside jurisdiction and those unable to physically attend the impossible two days verification exercise.
To compound matters, the Committee announced that the final list would be published on Friday, 5th June, deliberately coinciding with the Branch’s last general meeting before the election. This tactical move ensured that members who might wish to raise objections would be procedurally cut off, as the publication would pre‑empt any meaningful debate or redress. Such timing is not accidental; it is a calculated strategy to frustrate dissent, suppress transparency, and entrench irregularities. The combination of secrecy, restrictive timelines, lack of digital access, and tactical scheduling paints a disturbing picture of an Electoral Committee more interested in controlling outcomes than in guaranteeing fairness.
This situation is not new; it has become a recurring decimal in Unity Bar elections where even candidates duly cleared to contest are inexplicably disenfranchised from voting. The credibility of the process is further tainted by the fact that a preliminary voters list, obtained before the Committee’s official publication, contained a significantly higher number of eligible members. Yet, without explanation, the official list was pruned down to a fraction, raising serious questions about motive and intent. Such conduct reveals not just negligence but a disturbing pattern of electoral manipulation. It suggests that the Committee is less concerned with upholding the democratic rights of members than with engineering outcomes to suit predetermined interests. The arbitrary exclusion of active members, juxtaposed with the inclusion of deceased and long‑absent rhino members, points to a deliberate attempt to distort the will of the Branch. This is not an isolated irregularity; it is part of a systemic erosion of trust that has haunted Unity Bar elections, leaving members disillusioned and the Branch’s integrity in tatters.
We, as lawyers, are custodians of justice and fairness. It is intolerable that a handful of electoral committee members should usurp powers and impose irregularities on the Branch. The very essence of our profession is rooted in equity, transparency, and accountability, yet the Committee’s actions betray these values. By deliberately excluding eligible members, silencing dissent, and manipulating timelines, the Committee has created a process that is neither credible nor democratic.
Members should therefore demand:
1. Audit of the voters list against the Branch’s membership records of meetings and immediate rectification of the voters list to include all eligible members, without bias or selective exclusion. Alternatively, all members who have paid their practice fees and branch dues should be made to be an eligible voter in the circumstances.
2. Transparency in the modalities and criteria for accreditation, subject to the NBA Uniform Bye‑Law, with clear explanations published and debated openly at the general meeting.
3. Accountability of the Electoral Committee for its breaches of duty, including a formal report to the Branch. No committee should operate above the law or beyond scrutiny.
4. Boycott of the election by members if these irregularities are not corrected, for posterity’s sake. To participate in a tainted process is to legitimize injustice.
This is not merely about one election; it is about the soul of the Unity Bar. If we allow irregularities to persist, we risk normalizing manipulation and eroding the credibility of our Branch. Posterity demands that we act now, for silence in the face of injustice is complicity.
Indeed, if this aberration is allowed to happen, the credibility of the NBA Abuja Branch itself is gravely at stake. The Branch, which ought to be a beacon of fairness and professional integrity, risks being reduced to a mere caricature of democracy. Lawyers cannot afford to stand idly by while disenfranchisement and manipulation are normalized. Silence is not neutrality; it is complicity, and complicity corrodes the very foundation of our collective mandate as officers of the law.
If we allow this election to proceed under these tainted circumstances, we risk legitimizing a process utterly devoid of integrity and credibility. Such a precedent would embolden future committees to act with impunity, knowing that members will tolerate injustice. The Unity Bar deserves better, a process that reflects the values of transparency and accountability. The legal profession itself demands better, for if lawyers cannot defend fairness within their own ranks, how can they credibly defend justice in society?
Posterity will judge us harshly if we fail to act. Our silence today will echo tomorrow as a betrayal of the ideals we swore to uphold. The question is not whether irregularities exist, they are glaring. The question is whether we, as a body of professionals, will summon the courage to resist them. The Unity Bar must rise to this challenge, for the credibility of our Branch and the honour of our profession hang in the balance.
What is worth doing is worth doing well. This timeless maxim resonates profoundly in the present circumstance. If the NBA Abuja Branch (Unity Bar) must conduct an election, then it must be conducted with the highest standards of fairness, transparency, and integrity. Anything less is a betrayal of the ideals upon which our profession is built. An election marred by irregularities, selective disenfranchisement, and manipulation is not just poorly done, it is an affront to justice itself.
To do it well means ensuring that every eligible member is accorded their right to vote, that the process is open and accountable, and that no shadow of bias or secrecy taints the outcome. To do it well means upholding the dignity of the Unity Bar and preserving the credibility of the legal profession. If we fail to insist on credible elections, we risk normalizing injustice within our own ranks. But if we rise to the occasion, demand rectification, and insist on integrity, we will protect the Unity Bar and reaffirm our collective identity as lawyers who stand for justice. Posterity will remember that when the credibility of our Branch was threatened, we chose to uphold the principle that what is worth doing is indeed worth doing well.
Sir. Chidi Udekwe
PRESIDENT
OTU OKA‑IWU ABUJA
In this article