With the proposed date of the 2026 NBA elections drawing near, two cases stand in the way of a smooth electoral process.
The litigations-filed at the Oyo State High Court, arise from disputes over the electoral process, candidate nomination, and the constitution of the Electoral Committee (ECNBA).
Both litigations have produced interim injunctions effectively stalling the electoral process and creating significant uncertainty and tension around the election timeline.
The First Case: Challenge to the Electoral Process and ECNBA
The first and perhaps most consequential suit is that of Suit No. I/221/2026 instituted by Ibrahim Lawal, Raymond Oki, Omotan Olusola Ogunmodede and Gabriel Ojo Adekunle Ijalana against Incorporated Trustees of the NBA, NBA President, Afam Osigwe, Body of Benchers, Attorney-General of the Federation and Members of the ECNBA.
Plaintiffs in the suit are challenging the legitimacy of the electoral process and the composition and independence of the ECNBA
They are also alleging interference by the NBA leadership in election preparations.
The current NBA President, Afam Osigwe SAN is reported to have controversially remarked during the NEC meeting in Maiduguri that “I cannot be neutral.”
His comments caused immediate uproar from sections of the NBA and cast doubt on the integrity of the electoral process.
Afam Osigwe appeared to walk back those comments and diffuse tensions at the recent Body of Benchers meeting by stating that the elections are conducted by the ECNBA which is an independent body that cannot be controlled by anyone per thenigerianlawyer.
However, the court, per Justice GA Opayinka already granted interim injunctions in the suit. The orders made include;
- Restraining the ECNBA from:
- Acting as the electoral body
- Conducting or facilitating the election
- Restraining the NBA President from:
- Constituting the ECNBA
- Supervising or influencing the election process
The second case: challenge on consensus candidacy
The second case is that of Suit No. I/205/2026 filed by Incorporated Trustees of Egbe Amofin O’odua (a Yoruba lawyers’ association) against the NBA and its relevant organs.
The group seeks the enforcement of a regional consensus arrangement within the Western zone by demanding that the NBA recognise a consensus candidate for the Presidency.
Their aim is to restrict the nomination process to that candidate.
Similarly, the High court made injunctive orders in the case. It restrained the NBA from recognising or processing nominations of any candidate other than the consensus candidate.
Implications and way forward
Both cases threaten the smooth conduct of the 2026 elections. The injunctions effectively prevents the NBA from carrying out any consequntial activity related to the elections.
Despite urging members to follow the existing timelines for the elections, any protracted litigation will eventually cause instability.
Lawyers appear worried about a repeat of the 1992 scenario where election disputes led to a six-year leadership vacuum in the NBA.
They are also against litigations determining the leadership of the NBA.
These concerns were subject of side conversations at the last BOB meeting which sought to resolve the issue.
Senior members of the Body of Benchers considered constituting a committee of past presidents to resolve the issues. It is unknown if that has occurred.
Beyond the immediate concerns of the election is the unity of the Bar. The NBA risks a serious crisis that may fracture the Bar.