The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Afam Osigwe, SAN, has defended the NBA's petition to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee against fellow senior advocate Jibrin Okutepa, SAN. The move follows Okutepa's involvement in Suit No. I/221/2026, where ex parte orders were obtained to halt the activities of the NBA Electoral Committee. Osigwe, in a statement posted Monday on his official X account @afamosigwe, insisted the petition is based on professional ethics, not personal animosity. He dismissed allegations against him as "misleading" and said, "Nothing can be farther from the truth."
Osigwe clarified that the issue is not about Okutepa's right to accept a legal brief but how that right was exercised, particularly in ex parte proceedings. He stated that Okutepa was present at the National Executive Committee meeting in Benin where the Electoral Committee was constituted and had participated fully, including presenting a report after its ratification. Video recordings and meeting minutes, Osigwe noted, confirm Okutepa's attendance and the formal adoption of the motion. He raised concerns that material facts were not disclosed to the court when the ex parte orders were sought.
The NBA president questioned the use of incomplete minutes in the application, arguing it may breach the duty of candour owed to the court. Okutepa has rejected the claims and accused the NBA leadership of manipulation, saying he is unafraid of the disciplinary process.
Afam Osigwe's decision to escalate ethical concerns about Jibrin Okutepa's courtroom conduct sets a precedent for how professional accountability is enforced within Nigeria's legal elite. By anchoring the petition to specific omissions in an ex parte application rather than personal grievances, the NBA president places the integrity of judicial processes above institutional loyalty. This signals to Nigerian lawyers that even high-profile advocates are not above scrutiny when procedural transparency is compromised. For the Bar, it reinforces that presence at a meeting and subsequent legal action without full disclosure can attract professional consequences.
