The history of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) parallels the country’s political evolution. It began in 1900, the same year in which Queen Victoria’s British colonial government assumed formal authority over Nigeria after revoking the Royal Charter of Taubman Goldie’s Royal Niger Company.

For the next 59 years, leadership of the NBA was a lifetime preferment. Christopher Sapara Williams became Nigeria’s first lawyer in 1888. Twelve years later, he emerged as the first Chairman of the national bar. Sapara Williams served in that role until his untimely death in 1915. His successor was acclaimed colonial collaborator, Sir Kitoyi Ajasa. Like Sapara Williams, Sir Kitoyi served until he died in 1937. He holds the record as the longest-serving national leader of the NBA.

Olawolu Eric Moore succeeded to the role until his death in 1944. Eric James Alex Taylor – whose son, John Idowu Conrad, would later become the founding Chief Justice of Lagos – followed and died in that position in 1950. His successor, Adeyemo Alakija, did the same in 1952. Alhaji Jubril Martins, the sixth chairman of Nigeria’s national bar, died in June 1959.

The emergence of Frederick Rotimi Alade Williams as the first President of the NBA coincided with the arrival of independence in 1960. With a tenure that lasted until 1968, Chief Williams is the longest-serving president in the history of the association. Since the three-year tenure of Richard Akinjide from 1970-1973, no president of the association has held office for more than two years.

In the tradition of the NBA, it is assumed that the association invests the president with authority. Occasionally, the weight of the association has been advanced by the authority of a charismatic president with moral authority. One example was the presidency of Alao Aka Basorun during the military regime of Ibrahim Babangida from 1987 to 1989. Olisa Agbakoba arguably did the same from 2006 to 2008 in the fraught transition from the administration of Olusegun Obasanjo to the flawed mandate of Umaru Musa Yar’Adua.

Since 1960, the NBA has had 32 presidents. In the third week of July 2026, the association will elect its 33rd president. The mission of the association’s president is encapsulated in its motto: “promoting the rule of law.” Yet, from its very beginning, this has been a fraught mission.

The first two leaders of the NBA illustrate two different ideological pathways that have framed the association’s mission. Sapara Williams was regarded as radical, with a reputation for confronting white arrogance. He defended the rights of natives, argued for freedom of expression and was the father of “restructuring.” In 1904, he reportedly proposed to Lugard that “the present boundary between the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria be readjusted by bringing the southern portion into Southern Nigeria, so that the entire tribes of the Yoruba-speaking people should be under the same administration.”

By contrast, his successor, Kitoyi Ajasa, made his career as a collaborationist in the colonial subjugation of natives. A close confidante of founding Governor-General Frederick Lugard, Sir Kitoyi was also seven-time Worshipful Master of the Lagos (Masonic) Lodge No. 1171 between 1901 and 1928.

These themes of confrontation and collaboration have been durable in the politics of the NBA to the present day. As the country’s political economy has evolved and the demographics and reach of the bar have ramified, the factors that now define leadership at the Nigerian Bar and its orientation have also adapted, presenting the association with a third possibility – pragmatism.

In 2016, the association re-designed its leadership selection processes in three ways that are somewhat in tension with one another. One was the introduction of universal suffrage. The second was the emergence of ethno-tribal politics in the NBA. The third was the introduction of digital balloting. There is a fourth issue, which is the role of money in leadership selection in the association. A fifth is the role of outside interests and politically exposed persons. These five issues will require attention in the years ahead if the NBA is to retain both relevance and salience in the country’s affairs. It is useful to advert to each briefly.

First, the replacement of the much-maligned delegate system with universal suffrage privileges the young lawyers among whose population the most votes lie. The goal was to force senior lawyers to take their obligations to younger lawyers more seriously, in the knowledge that if they do not, their ambitions could be punished through rejection by the younger lawyers. The exponential growth in the population of lawyers in the country creates a need to improve data management capabilities. The association has made progress, but it still has considerable room for improvement.

Second, the NBA formalized the rotation of its most important positions across the three original regions of the country. In the shorthand of Nigerian politics, this is known as “zoning”.  At its best, it is an acknowledgement of the country’s ethnic diversity. At its worst, it is a genuflection before the gods of grubby ethno-tribal politics. The original design is that while ethnic cabals may be needed to bless leadership ambitions, those ambitions ultimately have to be acceptable to a broad majority of the association’s membership to succeed. In the contest for the leadership in #NBADecides2026, one candidate turned this engineering of political convention into a destructive weapon of political entitlement with backing from forces who inveigled the Attorney-General of the Federation into endorsing this in principle. It took the Court of Appeal to – momentarily – save the day.

Third, the migration of balloting to digital platforms has created its own problems. The twin bugs of energy and bandwidth hunger have sustained a deficit of belief in the integrity and administration of the NBA’s election systems. In successive cycles since 2018, voting has been afflicted by growing allegations of cyberattacks. In the latest cycle, voting had to be delayed by over seven hours because of what the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) called “a coordinated cyberattack on its electronic voting platform.” This cannot be condemned too seriously, but it was entirely foreseeable and reveals a failure of adequate stress-testing and firewalling ahead of the balloting. The organs of the NBA have a duty to now institutionalise effective and transparent post-ballot forensics in order to adapt ballot administration to the rapid changes in digital capabilities. It seems clear that this will be a site of vigorous contest in the aftermath of the current ballot.

Fourth, since at least 2014, the contest for leadership of Nigeria’s legal profession has become a liquidity derby. In that year, expenditure on the campaign for the presidency of the association broke the one billion Naira barrier. It has been on the rise since then. The pay-off is significant because the NBA is a multi-billionaire organization and its leader commands real powers of both access and patronage.

But the result is also that the candidates have to raise campaign funds from sources outside the association. In many cases, this puts them in hock to politically exposed persons (PEPs) who control the largest war chests in Nigeria. The accompanying bargains, even when implicit, can undermine the commitment of the association to “promoting the rule of law.” The responsibility to rein in this runaway inflation in the costs of associational politics in the NBA belongs to the ECNBA. A succession of leaders of the electoral umpire have, however, capitulated on this issue. That must change.

The road to the ballot in #NBADecides2026 has encountered more obstacles than a demolition derby. The contest is unlikely to end with the announcement of a winner on 19 July 2026. The outcome may end up in the courts yet again. Howsoever it ends, the association must confront, with bold transparency, the duty to continuously improve the administration of its leadership processes. It must also understand that failure to do so will endanger its commitment to promoting the rule of law. This is not an option as the country confronts a bumpy election year in 2027.

A Lawyer And A Teacher, Odinkalu Can Be Reached At chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu

International law does not permit any country to appoint itself ‘guardian’ of other states’ rights and demand payment. The only realistic solution to the situation in the Strait (of Hormuz) is a return to negotiations.

On 13 July, President Donald Trump appointed the United States the ‘Guardian’ of the Strait of Hormuz. The US would ensure passage through the Strait, he announced, but would ‘as a matter of FAIRNESS’ demand a payment of 20 per cent of the value of the cargo carried by each passing vessel.

This could be up to US$30 million per passage for a large oil tanker – an exorbitant amount and 15 times the sum Iran has reportedly demanded in tolls. It would be a reimbursement ‘for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the world,’ Trump added.

The president matched this announcement in the same post by re-imposing the US blockade of Iranian vessels and maritime traffic destined for Iran. In response, Iran confirmed that it would close the Strait again. In essence, this means that shipping has returned to the status it had before the ceasefire agreed by the US and Iran in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of 17 June.

Of course, international law does not allow any country, however powerful it may be, to appoint itself ‘guardian’ of the rights of all other states and demand payment for such unsolicited protection. And the president’s move contradicted the statements of his senior officials, undermining US credibility in the region.

On 14 July, a new post by the president appeared to reverse his position, saying that he had decided to replace the reimbursement fee ‘with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States.’

This U-turn will not undo the damage his fees threat has done to trust in the US, and to its supposedly principled position in defence of free maritime transit through international straits.

Meanwhile, the only viable solution to restoring shipping in the Strait of Hormuz remains a negotiated settlement – a prospect made even more difficult by the risk of further escalation of the renewed military conflict.

In the MoU, the US surprisingly conceded that Iran would restore freedom of navigation without charge ‘for 60 days only’. Afterwards, the MoU stated that Iran and Oman would ‘define the future administration and maritime services’ in relation to the Strait.

The MoU referred to international law and the interests of other Gulf states. But it also emphasized the ‘sovereign rights of coastal states in the Strait of Hormuz.’ Iran might be forgiven for thinking that by agreeing to this language, the US had caved in to its demand for control over the Strait. It has certainly behaved as if it does.

It is true, every coastal state enjoys sovereign rights over its territorial seas up to 12 nautical miles from its coast. However, where a strait used for international navigation traverses the territorial sea of any country, that state must grant unhindered passage to shipping of all flag states.

There is therefore no room in international law for Iran’s attempts to extract tolls, or for a similar and even more exaggerated attempt by the White House.

Iran persists in its claim to have moved the Strait’s sea lanes northwards, closer to its coastline and falling still further within its territorial waters.

But the original routing through the middle of the Strait was agreed as far back as 1966 with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the actual guardian of maritime freedoms – and cannot simply be changed by one state at the expense of all shipping nations.

The US and Oman, with the involvement of the IMO, responded to Iran’s claim by moving the sea lane south-wards, hugging the Omani coast and mainly traversing its territorial waters. Iran has tried to oppose this US attempt to reduce its power over passage by mounting occasional missile and drone attacks against shipping seeking to use the US/Omani route.

Last week, Oman hosted negotiations on this issue, supported by mediation from Qatar and others and legal drafting from Europe. A compromise would have been obvious: to return to the approved, original sea lane towards the middle of the Strait.

To facilitate this, experts supporting the negotiations proposed a compromise on the ‘Malacca Strait model.’ In that busy shipping route, coastal states do not collect tolls merely for passage. Instead, a reasonable fee is collected for pilotage and perhaps the provision of navigational aids and other services, with the approval of the affected maritime states.

Control over this arrangement could be exercised by a joint Iranian and Omani body, perhaps with some international representation. It would ensure that the fees remain proportionate to the services rendered and that the scheme is administered without discrimination, for instance against ‘hostile flag-states,’ which might include Israel or the US.

However, Iran remained intransigent in the negotiations, and no agreement was reached.

President Trump’s proposal to levy vast and disproportionate fees on shipping appeared once again as if the US was seeking to make money out of an emergency suffered by others, including those desperate for the importation of oil and fertilizers. In that respect, it was reminiscent of the minerals agreement pressed onto Ukraine last year.

The president’s fees announcement was immediately opposed by the IMO, which emphasized that it opposes all charging of mandatory fees for passage through straits used for international navigation. Trump’s reference to the fact that Iran started this crisis by demanding tolls is not relevant. The fact that someone observes another stealing a car does not authorize that observer to steal one as well. And ultimately this crisis was brought about by the US and Israeli attack on Iran in February, in the first place.

The Trump scheme was not realistic and clearly met stiff resistance from Gulf states, further undermining the White House’s diplomacy in the Gulf. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in June, referencing international law, that no toll would be allowed for passage through the Strait.

Trump’s governance, by Truth Social has undercut this position yet again. His almost immediate change of heart highlights how capricious the US president remains and how little can be invested in the statements of his most senior diplomatic officials. Trump’s backing down from an attempt to impose fees avoids further damage to maritime freedoms on the part of the US – but it has certainly further eroded US credibility. This will also weaken the US position in opposition to Iran’s demand for tolls. After all, the US president had demanded them fifteen-fold.

Some form of row back on the president’s statement was inevitable. His plan was unlawful and pure fantasy. Ships would have faced considerable risk in making a passage of the Strait opposed by Iran, even under US protection. Few ship owners would have risked vessels, cargo and crew in a narrow sea lane under constant threat of Iranian attack or mines.

Moreover, a charge of anything like 20 per cent of the value of the cargo would not have been a commercially viable proposition for the ship owners and their clients. The Gulf states and their offer of investments give Trump cover and an excuse for a rapid retreat from his unsustainable position.

However, this leaves the situation in Hormuz uncertain, as US-Iran hostilities escalate and maritime traffic slows once again.

It is now time for the grown-ups to intervene more decisively. The only realistic approach for a solution must lie in the resumption of negotiations to regulate shipping through the Strait and to return to a ceasefire.

Other countries such as China could make a significant contribution by finally applying pressure in favour of restoring the maritime freedoms on which they also depend.

There can be no Iranian control of passage or tolls. But there can be a face-saving arrangement for limited fees charged in proportion to expenses made in assuring safety of navigation, protection against environmental damage, and other reasonable expenses. And Europe, with leadership from the UK, can take a role in securing freedom of navigation once a deal is finally done – without seeking to impose a charge upon the world in consequence.

Prof. Marc Weller Is Director, Global Governance And Security Centre, International Law Programme, Chatham House.

I once advocated that we create a Ministry or agency charged with the responsibility of harnessing ideas canvassed at public speakings such as book launches or presentations, inaugural and other lectures, among others; the reason being the robust ideas traded at such fora that will, undoubtedly, enrich public discourse and help accelerate national development. I doubt if anyone in the government gave serious thought to the proposal.

And for not doing so, we miss a lot and lose a lot. We grope in the dark and fall into the same errors again and again. It is trite that ideas rule the world. Every invention is an idea brought to fruition. Little wonder, then, that it is said that if you can think it, you can do it. But what happens where thinkers are ignored and thoughts that can elevate us perish without anyone in authority reaching out for them?

Recently, I graced three events where profound ideas that can positively impact our lives and country were discussed: One was a birthday celebration; the second, a book presentation and launch of a let-project; and the third, another book presentation-cum-launching of an endowment fund for indigent students. Do you think Nigerian leaders are men and women of ideas? Gone were the days when ideas and political manifestos defined our politics. No more!

Today, our politics – and governance itself – is governed by money politics and thuggery. People with ideas have been muscled out of reckoning and packed in a corner to amuse themselves with their ideas! As they say in popular, streetwise parlance, to hell with you if you say you have ideas but aren’t a money-bag!

Goodluck Jonathan’s 2014 confab

At Bishop David Esosa Ize-Iyamu, General Overseer, Jesus Evangelical Assembly’s 60th birthday lecture held on Thursday, June 4, 2026 at his church premises off Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos, the lecture delivered by Wole Oladiyun, founder/senior pastor of the Christ Livingspring Apostolic Ministry (CLAM) was a treasure. Variously described as “preacher, pastor, apostle, prophet, Christian author of over 50 books, civil engineer and entrepreneur”, Oladiyun did not disappoint. As I sat listening to him, I wondered if there was anyone in the audience that could translate his ideas into action!

Men of ideas are ignored in Nigeria – and it can be very frustrating if you are one of such men and women. I recall how the 2014 Movement used to meet at this same Bishop Ize-Iyamu’s church, burning with the zeal to have the recommendations of the 2014 confab of President Goodluck Jonathan actualized to give birth to a better Nigeria. But it was an uphill task.

Those who have hijacked Nigeria and its destiny will not cede an inch of the country’s territory to men and women of ideas who seek to liberate and take it to greater heights. I saw some of our 2014 Movement members in the audience at the 4th June event. Those days, the humility, magnanimity, and generosity of Bishop Ize-Iyamu knew no bounds. But what a great opportunity Jonathan. missed to etch his name in gold in the annals of history!

Honour to whom it is due

The second event was the book launch – his seventh – by my professional colleague and brother, Ademola (Demola) Akinbola and the inauguration of his pet-project, the Nigerian Brand Academy, which took place at the GRA, Ikeja, Lagos on Thursday, June 15, 2026. The title of the book is “Communicating to WIN in career and business.”

Am I surprised at the ingenuity, hard work and industry of Demoo, as I fondly call him? Not at all! Those were the same qualities that informed my head-hunting him to co-lead the Business Desk of The PUNCH when I became its editor in 1992 and the decision was taken to shift the newspaper’s focus from entertainment to a serious, business-friendly format. Demola and the others did not disappoint. So whatever PUNCH has achieved today in that respect, Demola was one of those who laid the foundation.

And it was not at PUNCH alone that Demola has demonstrated his stuff; he has done so everywhere he has worked – at Owena Bank (which later became Omegabank), at Prudent Bank and even at Oladiyun’s CLAM where he worships. So, at Demola’s event, his boss at Omegabank, Dr. Rotimi Adelola (who later became the Secretary to the Ondo State Government), was there. Akinsola Akinfenwa, his boss at Prudent Bank, was there. Oladiyun, who was unavoidably absent, sent a representative. And I, his boss at The PUNCH, was there.

Of course, the hall was jam-packed with media and public relations gurus, including the inimitable Bisi Olatilo of BISCOM Communications. Taking after a river that wouldn’t forget its source – and which shall never dry up – some of us were conferred with an “Award of Recognition … In appreciation of (our) outstanding contributions to the growth and development of Ademola Akinbola’s professional career.” And I ask him to soar higher!

Speak with your judgments

The third event took place in Abuja on Thursday, 2nd July, 2026; it was the public presentation of two books as well as the launch of the “Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye Educational Foundation For Indigent Students.” The titles of the books were “Electronic Evidence, Second Edition (With Evidence Act, 2011) and “A Compendium Of Cases On Electronic Evidence (Volume II, 2020 – 2025).

A retired judge of the Kogi state judiciary and Professor of Law at the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), Abuja, Justice Omolaye-Ajileye is Nigeria’s leading authority in the new field of electronic evidence. Little wonder, then, that the hall was packed full with lawyers and judges, including an assemblage of justices of the Supreme Court that no one has seen before at such an event. Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) were sending other SANs on errand, as it were! Judges of high courts, appellate courts, and leaders of the bar, including former presidents of the Nigerian Bar Association, and leaders of the Body of Benchers, graced the occasion.

The Director-General of DSS was there; he performed the unveiling of one of the books; so also was the chairman of the EFCC, who also performed the unveiling of the second book. That alone speaks of the quality of attendance at the event. The keynote address was delivered by Kanu Agabi, one of the NBA’s living legends. Agabi caused a stir with his address, and so did the DSS and EFCC bosses. Saying that the “charges against our judges demand answers” and “the indignities the judiciary as an institution is now tolerating are not personal (but) are aimed at the institution of the judiciary”, Agabi charged the judges to “answer the charges. These charges demand answers. Speak through your judgments.”

Turning in the direction of the DG, DSS and Chairman, EFCC, Agabi said: “I wish to say as I see the DG of the DSS and the Chairman of the EFCC sitting side by side: We have billions, hundreds of billions, abroad, and this generation will have failed if we don’t bring back those moneys. That is what we must do now. Please, however we do it, we must do it.”

The EFCC chairman picked up the gauntlet and asked whether he could start the process of recovering the country’s looted funds right there in the hall! Roaring laughter! He thanked Justice Omolaye-Ajileye for having used his scholarship to expand EFCC’s capacity to fight crimes, describing financial crimes as “one of the major problems we have in this country today.”

The DG DSS agreed, saying that the author’s pioneering work in the field of electronic evidence has been of immense benefit to those of them involved in prosecuting cases in our law courts. There was pin-drop silence in the hall when he made a veiled reference to politician-cum-activist, Omoyele Sowore, insisting that calling the president unprintable names should not be tolerated by lawyers and journalists alike.

Like Awolowo, like Omolaye-Ajileye

As told by him, Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s decision to launch an educational endowment for indigent students has history behind it: “In I983 while I was preparing to attend the Nigerian Law School, my father lost his modest employment as a Road Overseer. At that time, he had eight other children who also required educational support at different levels. The situation was extremely difficult and my dream of becoming a lawyer was seriously threatened. I needed money to pay my Law School fees, including the cost of my wig and gown, but there was no money. Determined not to abandon my dream, I sought and obtained my father’s permission to look for a loan. By the grace of God, I found a benefactor who agreed to assist me. He gave me the money on the understanding that I would repay it after my graduation without interest. That singular act of kindness changed the course of my life. Without that timely intervention, only God knows what would have become of my educational and professional journey.”

He was lucky! The story is told of how the late sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, also at a stage in life sought a loan from a wealthy Yoruba industrialist to enable him proceed abroad for further studies, but he was denied! Notwithstanding, Chief Awolowo managed to achieve his ambition – and see what a blessing he later became not only to his Yoruba race (including the man who had denied him the loan he begged for) but to Nigeria as a whole and the generality of humanity! Imagine also the loss if Justice Omolaye-Ajileye had not been fortunate enough to access the much-needed loan and his educational and professional career had thereby been truncated!

I know of a destiny so truncated: Yusuf Adagbeje was the brightest lad in my primary school days. He was exceptionally good in Mathematics/Arithmetics. We finished school and everyone went their separate ways. Many years after, I was returning home from the NYSC camp, resplendent in my NYSC kits, and I hailed a taxi to take me home from the motor park. I settled down in the back of the car and adjusted myself. Along the way, the driver looked back to confirm where we were heading. Lo and behold, it was Yusuf Adagbeje! I screamed, “Yusuf!” He, too, screamed, “Ojo!” I asked him what he was doing; he explained that after primary school, there were no funds to send him to secondary school! So he learnt driving and was already a father of three. When I got to my destination, I offered him his fares but he declined.

Free education to the university level ought to be the right of every child. Its provision ought to be the duty of every responsible and responsive government. Once denied, individuals suffer, talents perish, destinies are destroyed and society’s progress or development as a whole gets stymied. So sad!

NEXT WEEK: Justice Omolaye-Ajileye’s recommendations for a credible 2027 elections.

turnpot@gmail.com 0705 263 1058