Last Saturday, the Eastern Bar Forum (EBF) held its quarterly
meeting in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State. Among other things, it resolved
to reject the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and subsequently issued directives
to branches of the N.B.A in the East to withdraw any memoranda they
must have submitted in respect of that.
While some lawyers applauded EBF and even joined in the same
call, some others stared in disbelief at what they described as a
big opportunity blown away by EBF.
In the words of a lawyer from Abia State, “the constitution
amendment presented an open post for the EBF and other pressure
groups to kick the ball into the net but they opted to kick it over
the bar.”
The motive behind the new amendment is still not clear. Many
lawyers have indeed opposed the idea especially for being passed at
the wrong meeting but EBF as a group should have been more
strategic in their position.
The most remarkable provision of the NBA 2015 constitution was
the enthronement of Universal suffrage for lawyers as provided for
in, Section 9(4).
Another remarkable part of the constitution is Section 9(3)
which divided the country into three zones for the purpose of
elections into National offices thereby recognising zoning.Section
2.2(a) of the second schedule further emphasized it.
In section 2.2(d) of the second schedule, it is provided that
where a position is zoned to any particular geographical zone; the
position shall be rotated and held in turn by the different groups
and/or sections in the geographical zone. This forms the crux of
this writing.
The EBF and other pressure groups have influenced elections in
the NBA long before the 2015 constitution but the advent of that
constitution left some doubt as to whether it made them stronger or
weaker.
No doubt, the introduction of the universal suffrage made these
pressure groups weaker since they will now have to grabble with the
control of many more lawyers who have now fallen into the dragnet
of eligible voters unlike before when the delegate system made it
easy for them to control and influence fewer lawyers for the
purpose of elections. However, the universal suffrage is not the
biggest problem these groups will face under the 2015 constitution,
the biggest problem they will have to deal with is the problem of
section 2.2(d) of the second schedule of the N.B.A
constitution.
The section has given the pressure groups a false sense of
authority and indeed deceived them into thinking that they have a
duty to give effect to that very section and other related
sections. I am persuaded to believe that it was based on that, that
the EBF made one of its most audacious pronouncement in its 13
years of existence putting itself on a likely head on collusion
with the N.B.A.
Section2.2 (d)(e) of the N.B.A constitution as stated above
provides for rotation among different groups/sections in the zones
and provides for the states that fall within each zone. This came
with a colossal error.
The colossal error was the failure of those who drafted the
constitution to include or recognize any body saddled with the
responsibility of giving effect to section 2.2(d).The N.B.A does
not have zonal branches.
In other words, the question at this point becomes, if a
position is due for a particular zone, who will put the section
into effect? Which organ will ensure compliance, what happens if it
is not complied with? The constitution is silent on these and some
lawyers believe it is deliberate.
Tactically, these pressure groups (Arewa lawyers forum, Midwest
lawyers forum,Egbo amofin,Eastern Bar Forum) putting themselves
forward were not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Another
question now becomes, where did they derive their authority? This
is where the EBF misadventure started becoming apparent.
The EBF is in focus now since the next president of the N.B.A
will emerge from the Eastern zone where the EBF also operates. One
would have expected the EBF to be the first to support the
amendment and lobby that the constitution be amended to recognize
it and other similar groups in the West and North as the legitimate
authority to give effect to section 2.2(d) or recognise a regional
body for that purpose where EBF will have influence. They acted
otherwise and left many brewing questions unanswered.
In the same meeting, EBF put into motion a process for adoption
of candidates. This may end up being an exercise in futility. Some
lawyers have pointed out that the EBF is standing on nothing in the
exercise of this authority. There are many “what ifs” arising from
the EBF voyage to assume the role in giving effects to section
2.2(d). What if another group emerges as an umbrella of lawyers in
the East, how will EBF prove its authority? What if a dispute
arises in the choice of a consensus candidate, in what capacity
will they relate to the N.B.A to do their will? What if an issue is
raised as to whether the EBF acted wrongly or rightly in exercising
authority trying to comply with 2.2(d). The answer is obviously NO
because the constitution did not in any way recognize its existence
and the EBF cannot assume it suo moto.
An argument in favour of EBF has stated that the EBF has always
selected its candidates ever before the 2015 constitution came into
force and that there is an established convention of “turn by
turn”. This is absolutely incorrect. The EBF has never in its 13
years history endorsed any candidate based on any convention
whatsoever.
The EBF was founded in 2004. In 2006 Olisa Agbakoba SAN Chris
Uche SAN and Funke Adekoya SAN ran for the position of the N.B.A
president.
Agbakoba and Uche came from states that are presently in the
East while Mrs. Adekoya came from the West. EBF which was young at
the time with a few members mobilized support for Agbakoba not
because of any convention but because it was politically expedient
to make sure that an outsider in the name of Mrs. Adekoya did not
take it away since two people from the East were in the race. Chris
Uche was left in the cold. Until today, the EBF has never had
reasons to choose any candidate based on any convention.
Some lawyers who have sympathy for EBF have argued that in 2012
in the election between Okey Wali SAN and Emeka Ngige SAN, the EBF
adopted Okey WalI over Ngige because of the “turn by turn
convention”. That is grossly incorrect. In the 2012 presidential
election of the N.B.A, the N.B.A at the time was opposed to
adoption of candidates by pressure groups. Emeke Ngige did not put
himself out for adoption so Okay Wali became the sole candidate for
the election since he put himself forward for adoption. According
to EBF at that time, Okay WalI was the only candidate that they
knew since he was the only one that came forward. There was no
opportunity to give reasons why one was chosen over the other since
they did not stand side by side for adoption.
Unfortunately, recently some lawyers have started changing the
narrative that Okey Wali was chosen over Ngige because of a
convention that is obviously not in existence. Again, the question
now is, how could you have chosen one candidate over the other when
indeed there was only one person for consideration? Another
pertinent question is “When exactly was this convention
entrenched?”
In my view, for an action to qualify as a convention, it must
have at least happened. The so called convention of turn by turn
has never happened in the history of EBF. The EBF has never in its
history put out a Presidential candidate on the basis of the so
called turn by turn convention which according to them provides
that the position will be alternated between Igbo speaking members
and OTHERS. However, if the EBF says that they want to start it
now, it is a different ball game and it will raise many questions
which will include the question as to how many sections/interests
actually make up the EBF and what will constitute fairness in
alternating the position.
Recently, some lawyers have started the agitation that the EBF
as presently constituted is actually made up of four groups namely
old Imo state, old Anambra state, old Rivers and old Cross River
state. Since the recent history of the association, old Anambra has
produced three presidents, Old Rivers has produced two presidents,
old Imo has produced one while old Cross Rivers has produced
none.
Some hardliners in EBF have argued strongly that the zones
within the association are recognized only on the basis of Igbo and
non Igbo states. However, some who are not faithful members of the
EBF have argued that the intent of those who drafted the
constitution of the N.B.A. or even founded the EBF was to strike an
ethnic balance. They argued that the use of sections and
geographical interest as used in the N.B.A constitution was a mere
diplomatic approach not to categorically ethnicise N.B.A
elections.
In view of that, they argued that technically, 100% of those who
have been presidents of the N.B.A from the region are all of Igbo
origin and no one from Ijaw, Efik, Ibibio, Anang, Kalabari etc have
been supported to attain the position. That line of argument is
gaining popularity by the day.
In all these argument, regardless of how brilliant they are, if
the N.B.A through its constitution continues to stay away from
saddling any group with the responsibility of making sure that
section 2.2(d) is put into effect, the EBF and its authority will
continue to stand on nothing. All its efforts will amount to
exercise in futility.
Last Saturday, the Eastern Bar Forum (EBF) held its quarterly
meeting in Abakaliki, Ebonyi State. Among other things, it resolved
to reject the proposed amendment of the Constitution of the
Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and subsequently issued directives
to branches of the N.B.A in the East to withdraw any memoranda they
must have submitted in respect of that.
While some lawyers applauded EBF and even joined in the same
call, some others stared in disbelief at what they described as a
big opportunity blown away by EBF.
In the words of a lawyer from Abia State, “the constitution
amendment presented an open post for the EBF and other pressure
groups to kick the ball into the net but they opted to kick it over
the bar.”
The motive behind the new amendment is still not clear. Many
lawyers have indeed opposed the idea especially for being passed at
the wrong meeting but EBF as a group should have been more
strategic in their position.
The most remarkable provision of the NBA 2015 constitution was
the enthronement of Universal suffrage for lawyers as provided for
in, Section 9(4).
Another remarkable part of the constitution is Section 9(3)
which divided the country into three zones for the purpose of
elections into National offices thereby recognising zoning.Section
2.2(a) of the second schedule further emphasized it.
In section 2.2(d) of the second schedule, it is provided that
where a position is zoned to any particular geographical zone; the
position shall be rotated and held in turn by the different groups
and/or sections in the geographical zone. This forms the crux of
this writing.
The EBF and other pressure groups have influenced elections in
the NBA long before the 2015 constitution but the advent of that
constitution left some doubt as to whether it made them stronger or
weaker.
No doubt, the introduction of the universal suffrage made these
pressure groups weaker since they will now have to grabble with the
control of many more lawyers who have now fallen into the dragnet
of eligible voters unlike before when the delegate system made it
easy for them to control and influence fewer lawyers for the
purpose of elections. However, the universal suffrage is not the
biggest problem these groups will face under the 2015 constitution,
the biggest problem they will have to deal with is the problem of
section 2.2(d) of the second schedule of the N.B.A
constitution.
The section has given the pressure groups a false sense of
authority and indeed deceived them into thinking that they have a
duty to give effect to that very section and other related
sections. I am persuaded to believe that it was based on that, that
the EBF made one of its most audacious pronouncement in its 13
years of existence putting itself on a likely head on collusion
with the N.B.A.
Section2.2 (d)(e) of the N.B.A constitution as stated above
provides for rotation among different groups/sections in the zones
and provides for the states that fall within each zone. This came
with a colossal error.
The colossal error was the failure of those who drafted the
constitution to include or recognize any body saddled with the
responsibility of giving effect to section 2.2(d).The N.B.A does
not have zonal branches.
In other words, the question at this point becomes, if a
position is due for a particular zone, who will put the section
into effect? Which organ will ensure compliance, what happens if it
is not complied with? The constitution is silent on these and some
lawyers believe it is deliberate.
Tactically, these pressure groups (Arewa lawyers forum, Midwest
lawyers forum,Egbo amofin,Eastern Bar Forum) putting themselves
forward were not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Another
question now becomes, where did they derive their authority? This
is where the EBF misadventure started becoming apparent.
The EBF is in focus now since the next president of the N.B.A
will emerge from the Eastern zone where the EBF also operates. One
would have expected the EBF to be the first to support the
amendment and lobby that the constitution be amended to recognize
it and other similar groups in the West and North as the legitimate
authority to give effect to section 2.2(d) or recognise a regional
body for that purpose where EBF will have influence. They acted
otherwise and left many brewing questions unanswered.
In the same meeting, EBF put into motion a process for adoption
of candidates. This may end up being an exercise in futility. Some
lawyers have pointed out that the EBF is standing on nothing in the
exercise of this authority. There are many “what ifs” arising from
the EBF voyage to assume the role in giving effects to section
2.2(d). What if another group emerges as an umbrella of lawyers in
the East, how will EBF prove its authority? What if a dispute
arises in the choice of a consensus candidate, in what capacity
will they relate to the N.B.A to do their will? What if an issue is
raised as to whether the EBF acted wrongly or rightly in exercising
authority trying to comply with 2.2(d). The answer is obviously NO
because the constitution did not in any way recognize its existence
and the EBF cannot assume it suo moto.
An argument in favour of EBF has stated that the EBF has always
selected its candidates ever before the 2015 constitution came into
force and that there is an established convention of “turn by
turn”. This is absolutely incorrect. The EBF has never in its 13
years history endorsed any candidate based on any convention
whatsoever.
The EBF was founded in 2004. In 2006 Olisa Agbakoba SAN Chris
Uche SAN and Funke Adekoya SAN ran for the position of the N.B.A
president.
Agbakoba and Uche came from states that are presently in the
East while Mrs. Adekoya came from the West. EBF which was young at
the time with a few members mobilized support for Agbakoba not
because of any convention but because it was politically expedient
to make sure that an outsider in the name of Mrs. Adekoya did not
take it away since two people from the East were in the race. Chris
Uche was left in the cold. Until today, the EBF has never had
reasons to choose any candidate based on any convention.
Some lawyers who have sympathy for EBF have argued that in 2012
in the election between Okey Wali SAN and Emeka Ngige SAN, the EBF
adopted Okey WalI over Ngige because of the “turn by turn
convention”. That is grossly incorrect. In the 2012 presidential
election of the N.B.A, the N.B.A at the time was opposed to
adoption of candidates by pressure groups. Emeke Ngige did not put
himself out for adoption so Okay Wali became the sole candidate for
the election since he put himself forward for adoption. According
to EBF at that time, Okay WalI was the only candidate that they
knew since he was the only one that came forward. There was no
opportunity to give reasons why one was chosen over the other since
they did not stand side by side for adoption.
Unfortunately, recently some lawyers have started changing the
narrative that Okey Wali was chosen over Ngige because of a
convention that is obviously not in existence. Again, the question
now is, how could you have chosen one candidate over the other when
indeed there was only one person for consideration? Another
pertinent question is “When exactly was this convention
entrenched?”
In my view, for an action to qualify as a convention, it must
have at least happened. The so called convention of turn by turn
has never happened in the history of EBF. The EBF has never in its
history put out a Presidential candidate on the basis of the so
called turn by turn convention which according to them provides
that the position will be alternated between Igbo speaking members
and OTHERS. However, if the EBF says that they want to start it
now, it is a different ball game and it will raise many questions
which will include the question as to how many sections/interests
actually make up the EBF and what will constitute fairness in
alternating the position.
Recently, some lawyers have started the agitation that the EBF
as presently constituted is actually made up of four groups namely
old Imo state, old Anambra state, old Rivers and old Cross River
state. Since the recent history of the association, old Anambra has
produced three presidents, Old Rivers has produced two presidents,
old Imo has produced one while old Cross Rivers has produced
none.
Some hardliners in EBF have argued strongly that the zones
within the association are recognized only on the basis of Igbo and
non Igbo states. However, some who are not faithful members of the
EBF have argued that the intent of those who drafted the
constitution of the N.B.A. or even founded the EBF was to strike an
ethnic balance. They argued that the use of sections and
geographical interest as used in the N.B.A constitution was a mere
diplomatic approach not to categorically ethnicise N.B.A
elections.
In view of that, they argued that technically, 100% of those who
have been presidents of the N.B.A from the region are all of Igbo
origin and no one from Ijaw, Efik, Ibibio, Anang, Kalabari etc have
been supported to attain the position. That line of argument is
gaining popularity by the day.
In all these argument, regardless of how brilliant they are, if
the N.B.A through its constitution continues to stay away from
saddling any group with the responsibility of making sure that
section 2.2(d) is put into effect, the EBF and its authority will
continue to stand on nothing. All its efforts will amount to
exercise in futility.