By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu
Twenty-three days after the transmission by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the upper chamber of Nigeria’s National Assembly, better known as the Senate, held public hearings on 18 December 2025 to consider the Legal Practitioners Bill. At this pace, the bill will be certain to become law well before the middle of 2026.
The journey to this bill has been somewhat tortured. The last time there was meaningful legislative action on the regulation of the legal profession in Nigeria, the military were in power and that was over 50 years ago. The existing framework governing Nigeria’s legal profession has in fact evolved very little since the Legal Practitioners Act was first enacted two years after independence in 1962. Long before the onset of this millennium, it was evident that the design and regulation of Nigeria’s legal profession needed to be updated. Substantial disagreements, however, existed as to how to accomplish this.
In December 2016, then president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abubakar Balarabe (AB) Mahmoud, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), constituted a Legal Practitioners Regulation Review Committee under the leadership of Anthony Idigbe, SAN, with a mandate to undertake consultations and rationalize proposals for the reform and regulation of Nigeria’s legal profession. As part of its work, the Idigbe Committee took soundings from the official legal profession and from branches of the NBA. The Committee comprised entirely of lawyers and, in its work, appeared to make little effort to reach out to or consult with consumers of legal services. That was a significant flaw in its process.
Upon receiving the committee’s report, the president of the NBA then set out the desired goals and ambitions of the reform he sought: “We need a legal profession” he declared, “that will inspire confidence in the Nigerian legal system such that entrepreneurship will thrive and foreigners will feel confident to invest in our country thereby generating prosperity for our people.” He complained that – afflicted as it was by chronically incapable regulation – “the Nigerian Bar Association as presently structured and managed cannot provide that leadership expected to produce these outcomes.”
For nearly two decades preceding the Idigbe Committee Report and immediately thereafter, the NBA had been led by SANs. In 2020, the membership of the association elected Olumide Akpata to lead it. An exceptional and able lawyer, Olumide made his name at the commercial Bar. It is fair to say that some traditionalists took personal affront at his election to lead the Bar.
Any hopes for a quick dash to translate into legislative reality the lofty dreams inspired by the Idigbe Committee Report were to be quickly frustrated by an internecine contest that ensued of egos and interests too complex to be rehashed here. As this contest unfolded, the original proposals of the Idigbe Committee vegetated; then mutated, before getting annihilated.
It appears that some interests within the Body of Benchers (BoB) decided in this flux to capture the profession. Much of the contest that followed over the future of the regulatory proposals was to occur within the BoB. A statutory body created by the existing Legal Practitioners Act, the BoB is described under law as “a body of legal practitioners of the highest distinction” in Nigeria responsible for admitting new entrants into the legal profession.
While the BoB sought to subordinate to itself the NBA and all other organs for the regulation of the Legal Profession, the NBA sought to argue for its independence as the professional association of lawyers in Nigeria. As this argument raged, some interests instigated a contest over the assertion of associational monopolies by the NBA with the emergence of a Nigerian Law Society (NLS), in effect forcing the NBA to battle on two fronts for its own survival.
These contests were still ongoing when in 2023, Nigeria elected a new President. Leading protagonists in the BoB, who were also counsel to the new president, acquired presidential leverage in the battle to shape the new regulatory environment. With the strategic landscape thus redefined, the NBA was left to seek tactical accommodation in shaping the content of the new Bill, with a focus on preserving its considerable revenue streams. The original ambitions outlined in 2018 for a radical reinvention of Nigeria’s legal profession suffered a tragic stillbirth.
Among its eight objectives, the bill proposes to advance public confidence in legal services; promote the public interest, rule of law and access to justice; and, above all, “ensure the independence, integrity and honour of members of the legal profession.” There is, however, a clear mismatch between the essential proposals of the Bill and these high sounding objectives.
For starters, about half of the bill is devoted to provisions for a revamped Body of Benchers, which emerges from these proposals as a supreme regulator – if not owner – of Nigeria’s legal profession. If these proposals become law, the provisions of the bill governing the BoB will prove to be the cemetery of Nigeria’s legal profession.
Far from being a guarantor of an independent Bar, the BoB created by this Bill is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ruling government. It will be funded by the Federal Government through the National Judicial Council. Among its membership, the BoB will include the Chief Justice of Nigeria; Attorney-General of the Federation; all Justices of the Supreme Court; President of the Court of Appeal and Presiding Justices of divisions of the Court of Appeal; Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and of all state High Courts (including the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory); President of the National Industrial Court; all State Attorneys-General; as well as the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chairs of Judiciary Committee in both chambers of the National Assembly if they have been lawyers for at least 15 years. The NBA’s representation in the Body will be 61, comprising its president and 60 other lawyers nominated by its National Executive Committee. It will be a no-contest.
Second, the BoB will be responsible not merely for admission into the legal profession but also for discipline. So, Body will subsume the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). Members of the Body will become, in typical Nigerian fashion, above discipline.
Third, to underscore the supremacy of the BoB, the bill now proposes that the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) can only make, retain or review rules and criteria for conferment of the rank of SAN, including any conditions for withdrawal of the rank “with the approval of the Body of Benchers.”
Fourth, in a specific act of legislative reprisal, the new bill excludes from the LPPC, the President of the NBA – until now a member of the LPPC which determines the conferment of the rank of SAN – unless he or she is a SAN. This provision is a specific reprisal against the NBA for electing in 2020, a president who was not a SAN. For that reason, this provision may, in time, become known as the “Olumide Akpata Reprisal”.
Fifth, the ambitions of the bill venture into the impossible. In addition to regulating the practice of law in Nigeria, it also purports to reserve for Nigerian lawyers only legal services in relation to any matter of Nigerian law; or in relation to any dispute or transaction with substantial nexus to Nigeria. Implicitly, the bill asserts extra-territorial effect. It is hard to see how that can work.
The bill contains other significant provisions, such as the requirement for mandatory pupillage of up to two years for new lawyers or for licensing of foreign lawyers. Even the provision concerning foreign lawyers tone-deaf. It defines a foreign lawyer as “a person entitled to practice law in a foreign jurisdiction.” By this bill, a Nigerian lawyer qualified in another jurisdiction is foreign.
Admirable though its original goals were, Nigeria’s new Legal Practitioners Bill has suffered predictable derailment. If it gets adopted in its present form, the new law will be a shrine to institutional capture. Its main achievement will be to create in members of the Body of Benches, a new breed of super lawyers. The currency of their trade will be influence peddling, the very anti-thesis of what the effort to reform the Legal Practitioners Act was meant to be.
A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu
