Legal Practitioners Bill 2025: The Pros and Cons

Enacted in 1962 and codified in 2014, the existing Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) is set to be repealed by a new law, as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR has sent a new Legal Practitioners Bill 2025 (LPB) to the Senate for enactment. Despite its far reaching and innovative provisions to reform legal practice and profession in Nigeria, a few have expressed misgivings that the LPB seeks to surreptitiously capture and hijack the profession by the Executive. The President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN; Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN; Onwudinjo Lucky Eloka and Kaine Ananwune examine in detail, some of the salient provisions of the LPB and what it seeks to do. Besides the NBA President, the other Contributors appear to conclude that the LPB requires reconsideration and  fine tuning in several areas, including that of the proposal for a mandatory two-year pupillage for new wigs, increase in the post-call threshold for the application for elevation to rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from 10 to 15 years, and the inclusion of politically exposed persons such as the Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and other National Assembly Committee Chairpersons as members of the Body of Benchers

Legal Practitioners Bill: Not an Attempt to Highjack the Legal Profession

Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN

W

e note that recent discussions and commentaries, which claim that the proposed amendments to the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) want to surreptitiously hijack the legal profession through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), and seek to divest the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) of its regulatory autonomy and transfer same to the Body of Benchers are unfounded. Firstly, it should be noted that the NBA collaborated with the office AGF and the Body of Benchers to draft the LPB.

In making its inputs into the LPB, the NBA leadership was guided by reports of previous Committees like the Tony Idigbe, SAN Committee, NBA NEC resolutions, NBA positions and recommendations from past Annual General Conferences.

It would be recalled that, previous attempts by the NBA to propose amendments to the LPA, met with stiff opposition from the Body of Benchers and some other interest groups within the legal profession. The NBA could not pursue a successful amendment of the LPA, which everyone agrees is long overdue, despite producing same after a series of Townhall meetings in many parts of Nigeria. The AGF therefore, provided a platform for the different interest groups in the profession to work together to produce the draft document that was presented as an executive Bill.

The LPB which the office of the AGF provided the platform for its preparation, proposes harmonised reforms which we believe will be very wide and far-reaching. In preparing the LPB, all stakeholders agreed on the imperativeness of not only reforming the legal profession in Nigeria, but also to put in place regulatory and enhanced disciplinary structures, aiming to boost ethics and accountability and modernising the profession. There is therefore, no attempt whatsoever to hijack the legal profession by the office of the AGF, or any other officer or person whatsoever.

In fact, the regulatory powers and involvement of the NBA have been better defined. Of particular interest, are the following facts:-

1. The number of NBA’s representatives in the Body of Benchers, is proposed to be increased,

2. The LPB has cleared any doubt about the role and power of the NBA in the investigation of complaints and presentation petitions of professional misconduct against legal practitioners, by proposing the establishment of a Committee of the Association known as Ethics, Adherence and Enforcement Committee to: (a) investigate the conduct of legal practitioners; (b) receive and investigate complaints against legal practitioners; (c) inspect documents, facilities, files, materials, offices, premises and records of legal practitioners, to ascertain their statutory compliance status and profile; (d) report, present, and prosecute instances of professional misconduct to or before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee; (e) enforce decisions, directions and orders of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee; (f) deploy or encouraging ADR for minor complaints against legal practitioners; and (g) advising and educating legal practitioners on proper professional conduct and statutory compliance.

3. Statutorily stipulate the objects of the Ethics, Adherence and Enforcement Committee to (a) give consumers and users of legal services an independent, timely, fair and reasonable means of redress for complaints; (b) promote, monitor and enforce high standards of conduct in the provision of legal services and advance integrity in the legal profession; (c) protect and promote public confidence in the legal system, the legal profession, the administration of justice and the rule of law;  (d) increase public understanding of the client’s rights and duties; and (e) promote and maintain adherence to the professional principles.

4. The President of NBA has now been made a statutory member of Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC).

5. The LPB adopted the NBA position that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) should sit in panels in the geo-political regions or even States, as the LPDC which is a committee of the Body of Benchers may determine by empowering the Body of Benchers to create multiple disciplinary committees to tackle case backlogs and improve sanctions.

6. Has made it mandatory for Lawyers to participate in the Continuous Professional Development (CPD)programme approved by the NBA, so as to remain in practice.

7. A compulsory two-year training period for newly qualified Lawyers before they can set up practice, either alone or in partnership with other Lawyers.

8. Strengthening the NBA’s role in issuing annual practicing licenses to Lawyers who have paid their practicing fee and met the CPD requirements as approved by the NBA.

9. Mandatory Seals/Stamps for authenticating legal documents.

A careful reading of the LPB will show that, many regulatory controls flow from regulations made by the NBA, reinforcing professional self-governance. Also compliance monitoring, enforcement, character assessment, CPD accreditation, and fee administration are all responsibilities clearly assigned to the NBA under the LPB. Indeed, there is no provision that confers licensing authority on the Body of Benchers or AGF, nor does any section remove, dilute, or transfer any existing regulatory powers of the NBA. As noted earlier, the LPB does not assign practising licence functions to the Body of Benchers or AGF, nor does it undermine the NBA’s statutory role. Any interpretation suggesting otherwise, is not supported by the text of the proposed legislation.

Rather than eroding the autonomy of the NBA, the proposed amendment codifies and strengthens NBA’s central role in regulating legal practice, aligns Nigeria’s legal profession with global best practices, and promotes accountability through structured licensing, disc and continuing professional development. Robust debate and stakeholder engagement are vital components of any law reform process. However, such engagement must be grounded in accurate reading and faithful interpretation of legislative provisions, particularly where the independence of the Bar and the confidence of legal practitioners are concerned.

Members of the profession are therefore, encouraged to carefully examine the Bill as proposed, participate constructively in public hearings, and contribute to the reform process with clarity, precision, and fidelity to the law. The initial fears that the LPB might dilute the NBA’s regulatory power, are unfounded. The LPB reinforces the NBA’s authority.

We have also noted some concerns raised by some Lawyers, and are working with the office of AGF to address such concerns, so that the version of the LPB that may be ultimately passed is one that will not only reform the legal profession in Nigeria, create a modern framework to promote public interest, rule of law, and access to justice through better-regulated, more ethical legal professionals.

Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, President, Nigerian Bar Association

A Critical Examination of the Legal Practitioners Bill 2025: Reform or Regression?

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN

Introduction

Law reform is not an exercise in legislative bravado. It is a deliberate, evidence driven process, aimed at strengthening institutions, improving access, and aligning regulation with social and economic realities. Where reform disconnects from context, ignores comparative experience, or undermines constitutional logic, it ceases to be reform and becomes regression.

The Legal Practitioners Bill, 2025 (LPB) represents a bold attempt to restructure key aspects of legal education, professional advancement, and discipline in Nigeria. Boldness, however, is not synonymous with soundness. Certain provisions of the LPB raise profound concerns of principle, practicality, and constitutionality. Chief among these are the introduction of a mandatory two-year pupillage before qualification as a legal practitioner, and the proposal to raise eligibility for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from ten to fifteen years post call.

This work interrogates these provisions, not from a position of resistance to reform, but from a commitment to rational, proportionate, and progressive regulation of the legal profession.

Mandatory Two Year Pupillage: A Solution in Search of a Problem

Section 25 of the LPB proposes a compulsory two-year pupillage period, as a precondition to full qualification as a legal practitioner. This proposal fundamentally alters the architecture of legal education in Nigeria, yet offers no coherent justification for doing so.

At present, the Nigerian legal training pathway is already one of the longest globally. Five years of undergraduate legal education, one year at the Nigerian Law School, and one year of compulsory National Service, already amount to seven years of post-secondary engagement before full professional integration. The LPB extends this to nine years, without empirical evidence of any systemic failure, or derivable benefits, warranting such elongation.

There is no jurisdiction in the world that requires nine years of post-secondary training, as a statutory minimum for legal qualification. This alone should give policymakers pause. More critically, the proposal misunderstands and duplicates the role of the Nigerian Law School. The Law School was deliberately designed, as a vocational institution. Its curriculum covers civil and criminal procedure, advocacy, ethics, property and corporate law practice, and professional skills. It includes mandatory court attachment, and law office attachment. Pupillage, by definition, is also vocational training. Introducing a further two-year vocational requirement without restructuring the existing framework, is regulatory redundancy masquerading as reform.

Proponents of the pupillage proposal, often cite the United Kingdom as a model. This comparison, does not survive scrutiny. In England and Wales, pupillage applies only to those who choose the Barrister’s route. It lasts one year, not two. There is no NYSC equivalent. A law degree, is not mandatory. The entire qualification process is shorter, not longer, than Nigeria’s. More importantly, pupils in the UK are permitted, after six months, to accept briefs directly and retain their fees. Pupillage is a bridge to independence, not a holding pattern of dependency.

The Nigerian LPB, proposes none of these safeguards. It creates a two-year limbo in which young Lawyers are neither fully qualified, nor economically empowered. The financial implications, are severe. If law firms are required to pay even a modest pupillage stipend, many firms, particularly small and medium sized practices outside major urban centres, will simply opt out. The inevitable result will be scarcity of pupillage slots, not because of lack of merit, but because of lack of capacity.

A qualification regime that excludes competent candidates due to structural bottlenecks, is indefensible. It risks creating a profession accessible only to those with financial privilege, or elite networks.

If Nigeria truly wishes to adopt a pupillage model, it must be part of holistic reform. That would require shortening the LL.B programme, redefining the Law School’s role, integrating pupillage into a streamlined pathway, and standardising post training assessment. The LPB does none of this. It merely adds weight, to an already overloaded system.

The Fifteen Year SAN Threshold: Longevity Isn’t Distinction

The proposal in Section 33 of the LPB to raise eligibility for the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria from ten to fifteen years post call, is equally problematic. It rests on an unspoken but deeply flawed assumption, that professional excellence is primarily a function of time. Distinction at the Bar, has never been measured by years alone. It is measured by quality of advocacy, intellectual leadership, contribution to jurisprudence, professional integrity, and service to the legal system. Time is relevant, but it is not determinative.

Nigeria’s legal history is replete with examples of advocates who attained the highest levels of professional distinction shortly after crossing the ten-year threshold, including the current Attorney-General of the Federation, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who was conferred with the rank after ten years at the Bar. This trajectory is not an anomaly. It is evidence that, excellence does not wait for arbitrary timelines.

The proposed fifteen-year requirement, also sits uncomfortably with the Constitution. A legal practitioner with ten years post call experience may be appointed a High Court Judge or an Attorney-General of a State. With twelve years, such a person may be elevated to the Court of Appeal. These are constitutional offices involving the interpretation of the Constitution, and the exercise of sovereign judicial authority.

It is logically incoherent to suggest that a Lawyer is fit to adjudicate constitutional disputes affecting millions of citizens after ten or twelve years, yet unfit to be considered for a professional honour recognising advocacy excellence until fifteen years have elapsed. Comparative practice, further exposes the arbitrariness of the proposal. In England and Wales, eligibility for King’s Counsel typically arises after about ten years of practice rights, with the decisive factor being demonstrated being excellence in complex advocacy. If the goal is to raise standards, the focus should be on strengthening qualitative assessment, not stretching timelines.

Closing Words

The LPB presents itself, as a reform instrument. In its current form, however, key provisions reflect a disconnect from educational realities, constitutional logic, and comparative best practice.

Mandatory two-year pupillage, imposed without structural reform, risks turning legal qualification into an endurance test, rather than a merit based process. The fifteen-year SAN threshold, substitutes arbitrary longevity for demonstrable excellence. Both measures, taken together, suggest a regulatory philosophy that equates delay with quality. That philosophy is flawed.

The Nigerian legal profession, does not need higher walls. It needs smarter gates. Reform must be evidence based, inclusive, and future oriented. Reform must be principled, not punitive. It must protect standards, without strangling opportunities. Above all, it must recognise that a profession that ignores the realities of its next generation, cannot sustainably regulate itself.

Jonathan Gunu Taidi, SAN; Bencher; former NBA General Secretary

Appraisal of the Legal Practitioners Bill, 2025

Onwudinjo Lucky Eloka

Introduction

Why the New Bill?

A Deliberate Attempt to Hijack the Profession from the NBA?

The Legal Practitioners Bill, 2025/2026 is an attempt by the National Assembly to modify the existing Legal Practitioners Act (Cap L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) which is the extant law governing legal practice in Nigeria, for the purpose of introducing a substantive transformation of the legal regulatory environment, emphasising enhanced accountability, mandatory professional standards, structured licensing, and modern disciplinary mechanisms to address contemporary legal practice challenges.

Major Introductions to the New Bill and how they Benefit the General Public

i. Legal Framework and Purpose: While the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) primarily regulates who may practice law, the discipline of practitioners, and basic structures governing the profession (e.g., Body of Benchers, LPDC) with focus on entitlement to practice, enrolment, disciplinary procedures, and certain client protections without clearly codified modern professional standards, the Legal Practitioners Bill, 2025 (LPB) seeks to respond directly to public interest objectives, professional ethics, and stringent accountability structures, to restore public confidence in the profession.

ii. Regulatory Bodies and Institutional Structure: While the Body of Benchers and the General Council of the Bar (GCB) are core statutory bodies under the LPA, with the Body of Benchers controlling admission (call to the Bar), discipline through the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), and other regulatory functions, the LPB retains the Body of Benchers’ role in admission and introduces the Ethics, Adherence and Enforcement Committee (EAEC) tasked with investigating misconduct as a statutory organ. There is a clear separation of powers between this Ethics, Adherence and Enforcement Committee and the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, in that one of the functions of the EAEC is to enforce the orders of the LPDC. And, a welcome development to the public is the fact that Section 21(7)(f) and (g) empowers the EAEC to deploy or encourage ADR for minor complaints against legal practitioners; and advise and educate legal practitioners on proper professional conduct and statutory compliance. While this provision would significantly reduce cases of petitions against Lawyers to the LPDC, if implemented well will boost public confidence in the powers of the system to call erring Lawyers to order in speed time.

iii. Disciplinary Mechanisms and Accountability: While the LPA establishes the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to handle misconduct, subject to Appeals Committee and supervisory powers of the Supreme Court, with penalties such as suspension or removal from the roll for unethical conduct; process and sanctions, the LPB enhances disciplinary system with multiple LPDC panels nationwide, for efficient case handling. Sanctions have also been broadened to include restitution, compensation to aggrieved clients, and mandated publication of outcomes. One important addition of the LPB is the separation of the powers of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee from the Ethics, Adherence and Enforcement Committee. The EAEC is to investigate and prosecute misconduct before LPDC, separating powers and improving procedural fairness.

Major Introductions to the New Bill and How they Benefit the Average Lawyer and the NBA

i. Admission, Training and Competence: While under the Current LPA, admission to legal practice is through the Body of Benchers after Law School and Call to the Bar, the LPB introduces a mandatory 2 years pupillage requirement for new wigs before independent practice, and the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as a statutory requirement for licence renewal. While the Mandatory requirement for CPD is widely seen as a welcome development, in that Lawyers will now intentionally hone their skills through intentional legal trainings, the mandatory 2 years pupillage requirement for New Wigs is both irrational and unnecessary. Firstly, while the intention of the draftsman may be to ensure that Lawyers who are licensed to practice have experience and quality training, this proposition is less advantageous to the legal profession. The LPB did not make specific provisions, for where and how the New Wigs are to be adequately remunerated at the material time. It just scratches the surface when it provides in Section 25(3) that the “Body of Benchers shall develop and maintain rules and guidelines which shall provide for –

(a) the structure, duration of the pupillage programme and allowances of pupils;

(b) fair treatment and selection of pupils;

(c) duties, training and responsibilities of pupil supervisors;

(d) support and advise for pupils; and

(e) complaints procedures and remuneration of the pupil.”

It remains evasive as to the exactitude of the plans the Bill has for New Wigs that do not get the opportunity to be accommodated for pupillage, how they are to be assigned, and the incentives that will propel Law Offices and institutions to admit more New Wigs for the mandatory pupillage. It is a grave concern that many New Wigs will not have placement opportunities to undergo this mandatory pupilage, or will have recourse to look outside the profession as a result of meagre or no remuneration within the mandatory period. Holistically put, this provision will also encourage backlog which the draftsman may have intended to curb. This section of the LPB, should be expunged in its entirety.

ii. Foreign Lawyers and Practice Restrictions: While the current LPA contains provisions for special authorisation to permit foreign Lawyers to appear in defined circumstances and lacks comprehensive modern rules on international practice, the LPB imposes clearer conditions on foreign Lawyers’ engagement in Nigerian legal services, including licensing requirements and partnerships with Nigerian practitioners. Section 30(3) of the LPB further provides that where the foreign practitioner has been granted special facility to practice, he shall only do so if he enters into a partnership or collaboration agreement with a legal practitioner duly authorised to practice law in Nigeria. While this inclusion should be retained as it makes clear geographical distinctions between Nigerian legal practitioners and foreign Lawyers, it is also economically advantageous for Nigerian Legal Practitioners as an opportunity to partner for briefs.

iii. Definition of Legal Practice and Public Protection: While the LPA merely defines entitlement to practice and illegal practice (e.g., unauthorised individuals engaging in legal practice) with penalties, largely preserved from earlier statutory language which have little or no bearing on modern realities, the LPB details what constitutes practice, including documentation, advice, and representation and goes further in Section 31 to criminalise unauthorised legal practice with sharper clarity for enforcement.

The Way Forward

It is important to take a holistic introspection of the LPB and expunge some inclusions which are detrimental to the practice of law, while improving and amending the LPA with the advantageous modifications the LPB provides.

In summary, the LPA provides a foundational but outdated regulatory framework, while the Legal Practitioners Bill represents a paradigm shift toward stricter regulation, structured licensing, enhanced discipline, and greater public accountability. The LPB, subject to modifications, significantly expands statutory oversight of competence, ethics, and professional conduct beyond what is contained in the Act.

Onwudinjo Lucky Eloka, Abuja

Brief Overview of the Salient Innovations in the LPB

Kaine Ananwune

What does the New Legal Practitioners Bill  (LPB) Provide For?

The LPB seeks to repeal the existing Legal Practitioners Act (LPA)  which was originally enacted in the year 1962, with over 7 amendments in the course of 63 years. The LPB introduces certain radical changes with the main objective being as contained in Clause 1 of the LPB as follows; to:

I. maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services;

II. promote and protect public interest;

III. promote the rule of law and improve access to justice;

IV. recognise and preserve the status of the legal profession;

V. ensure the independence, integrity and honour of members of the legal profession;

VI.  increase public understanding of citizens’ legal rights and duties;

VII. encourage an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession;

VIII. promote transparency, proportionality and efficiency in the regulation of the legal profession.

The Major Radical Features of the LPB

The introduction of the Continuing Professional Development (CPD), Annual Practice Licence (APL), usage of Stamp and Seal by legal practitioners

Although the concept of CPD, APL, Stamp and Seal are not strange to the Nigerian Lawyers, as they previously existed in the Rules of Professional Conduct 2007 and 2023;  these concepts  are about to receive statutory imprimatur having sought to be introduced for the first time into the main statute via the proposed enactment.

Ethics, Professional Discipline for Lawyers

Towards ensuring greater professional accountability and higher professional discipline for Lawyers, the LPB not only approved and retained the existence of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) under the auspices of the Body of Benchers (BOB); the Bill went further  empower the LPDC to sit in diverse territorial jurisdictions within Nigeria.

Again, the LPB seeks to water down legal technicalities that can impugn the decisions of the LPDC. For example, the decision of the LPDC cannot be rendered invalid, impugned nor successfully challenged on the grounds of any irregularity in the appointment of its members; by reason of the fact that any person who was not entitled to do so, took part in the proceedings; or  by virtue of any variation in the composition of the membership of the panel in the course of proceedings.

Furthermore, the LPB also seeks to establish the Ethics Adherence and Compliance Committee which is to be appointed by the National Executive Committee of the  Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), subject to the qualifying conditions contained in the Act/LPB. The major function of this Ethics Adherence and Compliance Committee (EACC) is to investigate allegations of professional misconduct levelled against legal practitioners, and to prosecute same where they deem it apposite, and also to enforce decisions of the LPDC.

The Two-Year Mandatory Pupillage for New Wigs

As of date, there is no legal barrier preventing a freshly minted Lawyer from setting up his own law firm, or from going into partnership with a more senior Lawyer. This regime is however, about to change, as the LPB seeks to curtail the unbridled setting up of law firms by new wigs.

According to the proposed LPB, new wigs are mandatorily required to undergo a 2 year pupilage before they can set up a law firm, or go into partnership with an older Lawyer. The Body of Benchers is also under a statutory obligation to determine the structure, duration of the pupilage programme and allowances of pupils, supervision and selection process for the pupilage.

Accreditation of Law Firms

The LPB seeks to empower the General Council of the Bar, to set standards for the accreditation of law firms.

How Nigerian Lawyers  and the Legal Profession Will Benefit from the Proposed LPB?

The concept of “practice of law” and “provision of legal services” in Nigeria

If and when fully implemented, the benefits that would accrue from the proposed Act are very certain and substantial. Firstly, the LPB not only provided a clear cut definition, but also expanded and gave a broader interpretation  and meaning to the concept of “practice of law” and “provision of legal services” in Nigeria. The ripple effect of this singular provision is that, it significantly increased the exclusive and specialised jobs/services that can only be rendered by qualified legal practitioners in Nigeria. It is common sense that rendering of specialised services by way of “practice of law” and “provision of legal services” in the base sense, simply translates to money.

Under the proposed LPB, the “practice of law” and the “provision of legal service” is deemed to include: rendering of advice or counsel to any person on their legal rights or responsibilities; selection, drafting, or completion of legal document or agreement that affect the legal right of a person; representation of a person before an adjudicative body, including to prepare or file documents or conduct discovery; or negotiation of any legal right or responsibility on behalf of a person.

Again, under the LPB; For the purpose of  “practice of law” and “provision of legal services”, the legal representation of parties before an “adjudicative body” also includes: a court, a mediator, an arbitrator, a legislative body, administrative agency or any other body acting in an adjudicative capacity; and a legislative body, administrative agency or any other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of evidence or legal argument by a party, renders a binding legal judgement directly affecting a party’s interests in a particular matter.

The larger benefits accruable from this legal interpretation of the concept of “practice of law” and “provision of legal services”, are almost infinite.

To ensure greater safeguard for the professional turf of the Nigerian Lawyer, the LPB  not only criminalises illicit practice of law by unqualified persons with a penalty of N5,000,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment, it also invalidates and renders a nullity any service rendered as a result of illicit practice of law by unqualified persons.

Foreign Lawyers and Unauthorised Practice of Law

Since the advent of the 21st century, Nigerian Lawyers have always lamented the unfair encroachment of their professional turf by foreign Lawyers, who besiege Nigeria to take over a large an juicy chunk of legal briefs (“practice of law” and “provision of legal services”) that ought to go to the Nigerian Lawyers. The computer globalisation and the internet boom in last 10 years, seem to have also worsened the predicament of the Nigerian Lawyer.

Also worthy of note is the fact that the old LPA that is sought to be repealed, did not make precise and sufficient legal provision as to what  “practice of law” and “provision of legal services” in Nigeria entails. The Old enactment merely provided for “right of audience” in Court.  The new world order has come to show that “practice of law” and “provision of legal services”, transcends far beyond court room advocacy. In today’s “practice of law” and “provision of legal services”, “audience in court” and “courtroom advocacy” seem to be only one-tenth of the whole business of lawyering.

By the LPB, the Body of Benchers may, subject to terms and conditions as it may prescribe, grant a licence for a specific cause or matter to a foreign Lawyer where, in the opinion of the Body of Benchers, such person is afforded special facility to carry out the specific cause or matter; Provided that where a foreign legal practitioner has been afforded special facility to practice as a member of the legal profession in Nigeria, he can only provide legal services or represent a client in Nigeria, if he first enters into a partnership or collaboration agreement with a legal practitioner duly authorised to practice law in Nigeria.

Higher Professional Standard, Ethics and  Accountability in the Legal Profession

The LPB seeks to hold Nigerian Lawyers, to a greater level of standards and ethics. With the introduction of the Ethics Adherence and Compliance Committee (EACC) and the reinforcement of the LPDC, both Committees have a statutory mandate to operate in any territorial jurisdiction within Nigeria, it goes without saying that Lawyers in Nigeria must brace up to higher ethical standards. This is simply because, the EACC will be on ground to investigate and prosecute Lawyers who fall short of the ethical standards.

Before now, there is no one statutorily charged with the enforcement of the decisions of the LPDC. It is commonplace to see Lawyers who are on suspension or already disbarred, still practising law and rendering legal services. With the introduction of the EACC, the automatic and prompt enforcement of the decisions of the LPDC is assured.

It is also worthy of note, that the EACC is empowered by the LPB to employ staff and engage Lawyers as investigators and prosecutors. What this means is that, every State of the Federation and indeed, every Branch of the NBA may have resident staff, investigators and prosecutors of the EACC. With this arrangement, it becomes almost impossible for an errant Lawyer to get away with an iota of unethical practice.

Further, where the GCB lives up to its statutory mandate by setting minimum standards and criteria for the establishment of law firms and chambers, the era of setting up law firms in the market square and in mechanic workshops and other similar undignified places, will be a thing of the past.

Legislative Consultations With the Stakeholders in the Process of Drafting of the Bill

The NBA is one of the principal stakeholders, that will ordinarily be affected by the proposed legislation. In the regular course of legislative drafting process, memoranda are called for, public hearings convened and stakeholders consulted.

I know as a fact that, Notices for public hearing were widely publicised as a prelude to the enactment of a new LPA. Official request for memoranda was extended to the NBA, which was duly circulated to members via the usual email channel.  Recommendations and inputs were made by the NBA to the National Assembly, with respect to the proposed enactment. Hence, it can be safely concluded that NBA was consulted in the legislative process. It remains only to be seen if, and whether the recommendations of the NBA will be adopted in the final draft/enactment.

Shortfalls Inherent in the LPB and Recommendations:

Politicisation of the Body of Benchers (BOB) by the inclusion of the Senate President, Speaker of House of Representatives, Chair, Senate/House Committee on Judiciary

Heads of courts are the epitome of the Judiciary throughout Nigeria. The Body of Benchers is the only melting pot where the various heads of all the constitutional courts of Nigeria, in conjunction with some eminently selected legal practitioners, meet to deliberate on issues affecting the legal profession. They should be insulated from politics. The Senate President, Speaker of House of Representatives, Chair Senate/House Committee on Judiciary, are all politicians and politically exposed persons. The inclusion of these political office holders as automatic members of Body of Benchers will in effect, afford them unnecessary political leverage, which must be discouraged.

The inclusion of these Politically exposed persons as automatic members of Body if Benchers, does not and would not in any way improve the functions or efficiency of the BOB.

Recommendation: the paragraphs of the LPB which suggest the inclusion of The Senate President, Speaker of House of Representatives, Chair Senate/House Committee on Judiciary as automatic members of the BOB, should be expunged as a matter of expediency.

Discipline of Lawyers

By the proposed enactment, the decisions of the LPDC take automatic effect on the legal practitioner indicted for professional misconduct, regardless of the filing or lodgement of any appeal at the Supreme Court, unless the Supreme Court orders a stay. It is common knowledge that due to docket congestion, appeals at the Supreme Court take a while before they can be heard and determined. The danger here is that, an innocent legal practitioner may have served a punishment he does not deserve before the Supreme Court hears and determines his appeal.

In the LPA sought to be repealed, an appeal against the decision of the LPDC operates as a stay, pending the hearing and determination of the said appeal.

Recommendation: This old order should be retained and preserved in the LPB, with a proviso that the appeals from the LPDC to the Supreme Court must be determined within a certain period- like 12 months.

NBA Representatives at the GCB

The NBA Constitution in the spirit of liberalism introduced universal suffrage, for the purpose of electing its own representatives to the GCB. However, the LPB seems to deviate from this traditional norm obtainable at the Bar. By the provisions of the LPB, NBA representatives to the GCB are appointed by the National Executive Committee of the NBA, rather than the usual election.

Recommendation: The new statute should simply allow the NBA to determine the mode for recommendation of its representatives to the GCB.

Kaine Ananwune, former Chairman, NBA, Anaocha Branch, Anambra State