CONSTITUTIONAL ZONING, INSTITUTIONAL CONSENSUS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NBA ELECTORAL PROCESS.

CONSTITUTIONAL ZONING, INSTITUTIONAL CONSENSUS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NBA ELECTORAL PROCESS. 

A Response to the Argument Against Regional Consensus in NBA Presidential Elections

Recent commentary questioning the legitimacy of regional consensus in the forthcoming presidential election of the Nigerian Bar Association presents the debate as a contest between constitutional supremacy and regional political influence. While the defence of constitutional supremacy is commendable, the argument unfortunately proceeds from an incomplete reading of the constitutional architecture governing NBA elections and ignores important institutional developments within the Association.

A more careful analysis shows that zoning and structured political consultation are themselves recognised elements of the NBA constitutional framework, and therefore cannot be casually dismissed as mere regional politics.

1. The NBA Constitution Recognises Zoning as an Electoral Principle

The NBA Constitution expressly recognises zoning in the leadership structure of the Association. Article 10(5) of the Constitution provides for rotational arrangements designed to ensure equitable representation within the leadership of the Bar. Similarly, Paragraph 2 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Constitution reflects the Association’s commitment to balancing representation among different zones.

The implication is clear: the NBA Constitution does not operate on a purely open contest model detached from regional equity considerations. Rather, it incorporates a structured political arrangement designed to ensure fairness and inclusivity across the Nigerian Bar.

Accordingly, the constitutional framework itself recognises that leadership within the Bar must sometimes be organised through zonal arrangements and negotiated understandings among professional constituencies.

2. The NBA NEC Has Already Affirmed the Zoning Arrangement

The issue of zoning for the 2026 NBA presidential election was not left to speculation or informal politics. It was formally addressed at the National Executive Council meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association held in Enugu on Saturday, 23 August 2025. The communiqué issued at the end of that meeting expressly noted and acknowledged the resolution of the Mid-West Bar Forum regarding the zoning of the office of NBA President for the 2026 General Elections.

The communiqué stated that:

• In accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions, the office of NBA President for 2026 is zoned to the Western Zone, comprising the South-West and Mid-West.

• Having produced the NBA President in 2020 through Mr. Olumide Akpata, the Mid-West Bar Forum yielded the 2026 slot to the South-West Sub-Zone.

• Aspirants from the Mid-West were accordingly urged to step down their aspirations in recognition of this arrangement.

• By virtue of this concession, the Mid-West Bar Forum is expected to produce candidate(s) for the NBA Presidency in 2032.

This development demonstrates that zoning and micro-zoning are not merely informal political practices but institutional arrangements acknowledged at the highest decision-making level of the NBA.

3. Zoning Necessarily Requires Internal Consensus Within the Benefiting Sub-Zone

Once zoning allocates the presidency to a particular zone or sub-zone, a practical question inevitably arises: how does that zone manage multiple aspirants from within its ranks?

This is precisely where professional platforms such as Egbe Amofin O’odua play a crucial stabilising role.

These bodies provide a structured forum through which lawyers within a zone or sub-zone can deliberate, negotiate, and present a consensus candidate in order to prevent destructive fragmentation within the electoral process. Therefore, it ordinarily follows that to recognise zoning while simultaneously condemning the consultative mechanisms that make zoning workable is not only logically inconsistent, it also undermines the very institutional processes through which the zoning principle is intended to operate within the Nigerian Bar Association. 

Zoning without internal coordination would simply produce multiple competing aspirants from the same sub-zone, thereby defeating the very objective of the zoning arrangement.

4. Participation in Consensus-Building Creates Legitimate Expectations of Honour

The most critical issue is not whether any lawyer is constitutionally qualified to contest the presidency of the NBA. The Constitution clearly sets out the eligibility criteria.

The real issue is whether a lawyer who voluntarily participates in a consultative process designed to produce a consensus candidate can subsequently repudiate that outcome when it becomes inconvenient.

Professional associations depend not only on written rules but also on good faith and mutual trust among members.

Where a participant in a collective process later seeks to disregard the outcome while relying on technical constitutional arguments, the matter ceases to be purely legal; it raises deeper concerns about professional honour and fidelity to collective commitments. The matter raises ethical Issues. Lawyers are bound by their words. No lawyer worth leadership of a professional association like NBA should engage in chameleon attitude. Integrity is the hallmark of professional ethics. A lawyer who took part in a process should not be allowed to turn round to condemn the same process. No lawyer should be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. 

5. Ibadan Court, the Facts in Issues, and the Justice of Constitutional Zoning

 Section 10(5) of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association provides that “for the purpose of elections into National Offices, the country shall be divided into three zones as set out in the Second Schedule to this Constitution.” Pursuant to this provision, Paragraph 1 of Part III of the Second Schedule divides the Association into three electoral zones, namely the Northern Zone, the Eastern Zone, and the Western Zone.

Paragraph 2 of the same Part of the Second Schedule further recognises the office of the President of the Association as one of the positions subject to this zoning arrangement.

In accordance with this constitutional framework, the office of the President for the relevant election cycle is zoned to the Western Zone, comprising Delta, Edo, Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Osun, and Oyo States. Consistent with the established tradition of inclusiveness and equitable representation within the Nigerian Bar, the Western Zone, through broad consultations, has further micro-zoned the position to the core Yoruba States—Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, and Oyo States.

Among these States, it is a matter of historical record that Osun State remains the only State within this core grouping that has not produced a President of the Nigerian Bar Association. In recognition of this imbalance and in furtherance of the constitutional ideals of fairness, equity, and inclusiveness embedded in Paragraph 4 of Part III of the Second Schedule, the respected professional platform Egbe Amofin O’odua undertook a consultative process aimed at preserving unity and preventing unnecessary rancour within the micro-zone.

Consequently, after extensive consultations and presentations by interested aspirants before the Egbe Amofin NBA 2026 General Election Consultative Committee, the body resolved—within the framework of the constitutional zoning arrangement—to rotate the opportunity to the Osun/Oyo axis and to settle on a consensus candidate. The objective of this process was neither to usurp the electoral sovereignty of members nor to impose a candidate on the electorate, but rather to promote harmony, fairness, and disciplined competition within the zone constitutionally entitled to produce the President.

This is, in essence, the real issue underlying the proceedings before the court in Ibadan.

Ultimately, therefore, the matter transcends a narrow technical question of constitutional interpretation. It raises a deeper and more enduring question of professional morality: the question of respect for collective negotiation, fidelity to consensual arrangements freely entered into, commitment to inclusiveness, political fairness, and the ethical discipline expected of members of a profession that daily admonishes society on the sanctity of agreements and the importance of honouring undertakings.

For the Nigerian Bar, the integrity of its constitutional arrangements must be matched by the integrity of the lawyers who operate within them.

7. Constitutional Interpretation Must Not Become a Tool for Institutional Weakening

It is important that constitutional arguments within the Bar are deployed responsibly and with full appreciation of the institutional consequences they may generate.

Professional platforms such as Egbe Amofin O’odua have historically contributed to stability, consultation, and leadership development within the Nigerian Bar.

It would therefore be unfortunate if constitutional rhetoric were subtly deployed in ways that diminish the authority of these institutions merely to advance narrow personal or sectional ambitions.

A profession that prides itself on ethical leadership must guard against the gradual normalisation of conduct that places personal aspiration above collective integrity.

8. Democracy Within the Bar Requires Both Law and Character

The Nigerian Bar Association has always combined constitutional governance with strong professional traditions of consultation, restraint, and respect for collective decisions.

Where those traditions are weakened, constitutional provisions alone cannot sustain institutional stability.

The strength of the Bar ultimately lies not merely in legal texts but in the integrity with which lawyers honour the processes to which they voluntarily submit themselves.

Conclusion

The constitutional framework of the Nigerian Bar Association unquestionably provides for universal suffrage in the election of national officers. However, that framework also recognises zoning and equitable representation as important organising principles within the leadership structure of the Association.

The resolutions acknowledged by the NBA NEC in 2025 demonstrate that zoning and micro-zoning are not peripheral political arrangements but recognised institutional mechanisms within the governance of the Bar.

Regional professional bodies therefore play a legitimate role in facilitating consultations within the zones benefiting from such arrangements.

Ultimately, the future of the Nigerian Bar will depend not only on constitutional interpretation but also on the willingness of its members to uphold integrity, honour, and fidelity to collective commitments. Any approach that encourages the abandonment of these values risks weakening the very institutional fabric that has sustained the Bar for generations. For a profession that daily teaches society the sanctity of agreements, the lesson must begin from within.

Olusegun Femi. Akeredolu (Ph.D)

akeredolukaikai@gmail.com 

Writes From Akure, Ondo State. 

CONSTITUTIONAL ZONING, INSTITUTIONAL CONSENSUS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NBA ELECTORAL PROCESS

A Response to the Argument Against Regional Consensus in NBA Presidential Elections

Recent commentary questioning the legitimacy of regional consensus in the forthcoming presidential election of the Nigerian Bar Association presents the debate as a contest between constitutional supremacy and regional political influence. While the defence of constitutional supremacy is commendable, the argument unfortunately proceeds from an incomplete reading of the constitutional architecture governing NBA elections and ignores important institutional developments within the Association.

A more careful analysis shows that zoning and structured political consultation are themselves recognised elements of the NBA constitutional framework, and therefore cannot be casually dismissed as mere regional politics.

1. The NBA Constitution Recognises Zoning as an Electoral Principle

The NBA Constitution expressly recognises zoning in the leadership structure of the Association. Article 10(5) of the Constitution provides for rotational arrangements designed to ensure equitable representation within the leadership of the Bar. Similarly, Paragraph 2 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Constitution reflects the Association’s commitment to balancing representation among different zones.

The implication is clear: the NBA Constitution does not operate on a purely open contest model detached from regional equity considerations. Rather, it incorporates a structured political arrangement designed to ensure fairness and inclusivity across the Nigerian Bar.

Accordingly, the constitutional framework itself recognises that leadership within the Bar must sometimes be organised through zonal arrangements and negotiated understandings among professional constituencies.

2. The NBA NEC Has Already Affirmed the Zoning Arrangement

The issue of zoning for the 2026 NBA presidential election was not left to speculation or informal politics. It was formally addressed at the National Executive Council meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association held in Enugu on Saturday, 23 August 2025. The communiqué issued at the end of that meeting expressly noted and acknowledged the resolution of the Mid-West Bar Forum regarding the zoning of the office of NBA President for the 2026 General Elections.

The communiqué stated that:

In accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions, the office of NBA President for 2026 is zoned to the Western Zone, comprising the South-West and Mid-West.

Having produced the NBA President in 2020 through Mr. Olumide Akpata, the Mid-West Bar Forum yielded the 2026 slot to the South-West Sub-Zone.

Aspirants from the Mid-West were accordingly urged to step down their aspirations in recognition of this arrangement.

By virtue of this concession, the Mid-West Bar Forum is expected to produce candidate(s) for the NBA Presidency in 2032.

This development demonstrates that zoning and micro-zoning are not merely informal political practices but institutional arrangements acknowledged at the highest decision-making level of the NBA.

3. Zoning Necessarily Requires Internal Consensus Within the Benefiting Sub-Zone

Once zoning allocates the presidency to a particular zone or sub-zone, a practical question inevitably arises: how does that zone manage multiple aspirants from within its ranks?

This is precisely where professional platforms such as Egbe Amofin O’odua play a crucial stabilising role.

These bodies provide a structured forum through which lawyers within a zone or sub-zone can deliberate, negotiate, and present a consensus candidate in order to prevent destructive fragmentation within the electoral process. Therefore, it ordinarily follows that to recognise zoning while simultaneously condemning the consultative mechanisms that make zoning workable is not only logically inconsistent, it also undermines the very institutional processes through which the zoning principle is intended to operate within the Nigerian Bar Association. 

Zoning without internal coordination would simply produce multiple competing aspirants from the same sub-zone, thereby defeating the very objective of the zoning arrangement.

4. Participation in Consensus-Building Creates Legitimate Expectations of Honour

The most critical issue is not whether any lawyer is constitutionally qualified to contest the presidency of the NBA. The Constitution clearly sets out the eligibility criteria.

The real issue is whether a lawyer who voluntarily participates in a consultative process designed to produce a consensus candidate can subsequently repudiate that outcome when it becomes inconvenient.

Professional associations depend not only on written rules but also on good faith and mutual trust among members.

Where a participant in a collective process later seeks to disregard the outcome while relying on technical constitutional arguments, the matter ceases to be purely legal; it raises deeper concerns about professional honour and fidelity to collective commitments. The matter raises ethical Issues. Lawyers are bound by their words. No lawyer worth leadership of a professional association like NBA should engage in chameleon attitude. Integrity is the hallmark of professional ethics. A lawyer who took part in a process should not be allowed to turn round to condemn the same process. No lawyer should be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. 

5. Ibadan Court, the Facts in Issues, and the Justice of Constitutional Zoning

 Section 10(5) of the Constitution of the Nigerian Bar Association provides that “for the purpose of elections into National Offices, the country shall be divided into three zones as set out in the Second Schedule to this Constitution.” Pursuant to this provision, Paragraph 1 of Part III of the Second Schedule divides the Association into three electoral zones, namely the Northern Zone, the Eastern Zone, and the Western Zone.

Paragraph 2 of the same Part of the Second Schedule further recognises the office of the President of the Association as one of the positions subject to this zoning arrangement.

In accordance with this constitutional framework, the office of the President for the relevant election cycle is zoned to the Western Zone, comprising Delta, Edo, Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Osun, and Oyo States. Consistent with the established tradition of inclusiveness and equitable representation within the Nigerian Bar, the Western Zone, through broad consultations, has further micro-zoned the position to the core Yoruba States—Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, and Oyo States.

Among these States, it is a matter of historical record that Osun State remains the only State within this core grouping that has not produced a President of the Nigerian Bar Association. In recognition of this imbalance and in furtherance of the constitutional ideals of fairness, equity, and inclusiveness embedded in Paragraph 4 of Part III of the Second Schedule, the respected professional platform Egbe Amofin O’odua undertook a consultative process aimed at preserving unity and preventing unnecessary rancour within the micro-zone.

Consequently, after extensive consultations and presentations by interested aspirants before the Egbe Amofin NBA 2026 General Election Consultative Committee, the body resolved—within the framework of the constitutional zoning arrangement—to rotate the opportunity to the Osun/Oyo axis and to settle on a consensus candidate. The objective of this process was neither to usurp the electoral sovereignty of members nor to impose a candidate on the electorate, but rather to promote harmony, fairness, and disciplined competition within the zone constitutionally entitled to produce the President.

This is, in essence, the real issue underlying the proceedings before the court in Ibadan.

Ultimately, therefore, the matter transcends a narrow technical question of constitutional interpretation. It raises a deeper and more enduring question of professional morality: the question of respect for collective negotiation, fidelity to consensual arrangements freely entered into, commitment to inclusiveness, political fairness, and the ethical discipline expected of members of a profession that daily admonishes society on the sanctity of agreements and the importance of honouring undertakings.

For the Nigerian Bar, the integrity of its constitutional arrangements must be matched by the integrity of the lawyers who operate within them.

7. Constitutional Interpretation Must Not Become a Tool for Institutional Weakening

It is important that constitutional arguments within the Bar are deployed responsibly and with full appreciation of the institutional consequences they may generate.

Professional platforms such as Egbe Amofin O’odua have historically contributed to stability, consultation, and leadership development within the Nigerian Bar.

It would therefore be unfortunate if constitutional rhetoric were subtly deployed in ways that diminish the authority of these institutions merely to advance narrow personal or sectional ambitions.

A profession that prides itself on ethical leadership must guard against the gradual normalisation of conduct that places personal aspiration above collective integrity.

8. Democracy Within the Bar Requires Both Law and Character

The Nigerian Bar Association has always combined constitutional governance with strong professional traditions of consultation, restraint, and respect for collective decisions.

Where those traditions are weakened, constitutional provisions alone cannot sustain institutional stability.

The strength of the Bar ultimately lies not merely in legal texts but in the integrity with which lawyers honour the processes to which they voluntarily submit themselves.

Conclusion

The constitutional framework of the Nigerian Bar Association unquestionably provides for universal suffrage in the election of national officers. However, that framework also recognises zoning and equitable representation as important organising principles within the leadership structure of the Association.

The resolutions acknowledged by the NBA NEC in 2025 demonstrate that zoning and micro-zoning are not peripheral political arrangements but recognised institutional mechanisms within the governance of the Bar.

Regional professional bodies therefore play a legitimate role in facilitating consultations within the zones benefiting from such arrangements.

Ultimately, the future of the Nigerian Bar will depend not only on constitutional interpretation but also on the willingness of its members to uphold integrity, honour, and fidelity to collective commitments. Any approach that encourages the abandonment of these values risks weakening the very institutional fabric that has sustained the Bar for generations. For a profession that daily teaches society the sanctity of agreements, the lesson must begin from within.

Olusegun Femi. Akeredolu (Ph.D)

akeredolukaikai@gmail.com 

Writes From Akure, Ondo State.