A controversial piece of legislation, the Legal Practitioners Bill transmitted by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is rapidly progressing through the National Assembly, raising alarms about government capture and reprisal against the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
Public hearings were held by the Senate on December 18, 2025, just twenty-three days after the president sent the bill. At this accelerated pace, it is expected to become law well before the middle of 2026. This move seeks to overhaul a legal regulatory framework that has remained largely unchanged since the Legal Practitioners Act of 1962.
A Tortured Journey to Reform
The push for reform is not new. By December 2016, then-NBA President Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud (SAN) constituted the Anthony Idigbe-led Legal Practitioners Regulation Review Committee. Its mandate was to rationalize proposals for modernizing the profession. However, the committee's work, comprised entirely of lawyers, notably failed to consult consumers of legal services.
The original ambition, as stated in 2018, was to build a legal profession that would inspire confidence, encourage entrepreneurship, and attract foreign investment. However, these lofty goals were soon derailed by complex internal battles within the legal community.
The Battle for Control and the Rise of the Body of Benchers
The core of the controversy lies in the proposed immense powers granted to the Body of Benchers (BoB). The new bill dedicates about half of its provisions to revamping this body, effectively positioning it as the supreme regulator—if not the owner—of Nigeria's legal profession.
Far from guaranteeing an independent Bar, the proposed BoB would function as a subsidiary of the ruling government. It would be funded by the Federal Government through the National Judicial Council. Its composition is overwhelmingly stacked with government officials and judicial figures, including:
- The Chief Justice of Nigeria and all Justices of the Supreme Court.
- The Attorney-General of the Federation and all State Attorneys-General.
- Presidents of the Court of Appeal and the National Industrial Court.
- Chief Judges of the Federal High Court and all State High Courts.
- The Senate President, Speaker of the House, and their Judiciary Committee chairs (if they are lawyers of 15+ years).
In contrast, the NBA's representation would be limited to 61 members, nominated by its National Executive Committee. This structure ensures a decisive government majority.
Key Controversial Provisions and Acts of Reprisal
The bill contains several clauses that have drawn sharp criticism from legal observers:
First, the BoB would absorb the functions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), placing discipline in the hands of a body whose members may become "above discipline."
Second, it asserts control over the prestigious rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) can only make or review rules for the rank "with the approval of the Body of Benchers."
Third, a clear act of legislative reprisal excludes the President of the NBA from the LPPC unless he or she is already a SAN. This provision is a direct response to the NBA's election of Olumide Akpata, a non-SAN, as its president in 2020. It may well become known as the "Olumide Akpata Reprisal."
Fourth, the bill ambitiously claims extraterritorial jurisdiction, reserving all legal services related to Nigerian law or disputes for Nigerian lawyers alone—a provision widely seen as unworkable.
Fifth, it contains paradoxical definitions, classifying a Nigerian lawyer qualified in another jurisdiction as a "foreign lawyer."
A Tragedy of Institutional Capture
The original vision for a radical, confidence-inspiring reform has suffered a tragic stillbirth. If passed in its current form, the new law will enshrine institutional capture, creating a breed of "super lawyers" within the BoB whose currency is influence-peddling.
This outcome is the antithesis of the reform initially sought. The bill, now fast-tracked with presidential leverage, appears set to cement government control over the legal profession, undermining its independence and the very rule of law it claims to promote.
