By Fatai Abiodun
On the 18th July 2026, the largest bar in Africa and the world’s most noble profession conducted its association national election, and the conclusion of the election has once again demonstrated both the resilience and the fragility of the Association’s democratic process. While the election ‘successfully’ produced a new leadership, it also generated considerable controversy over the conduct of the polls, the electronic voting process, transparency, and the management of pre-election grievances. As is often the case with highly contested elections, opinions remain sharply divided. Yet, as the dust begins to settle, the more pressing question is no longer who won or who lost, but what lies ahead for the NBA.
According to Premium Times, the Electoral Committee of the NBA (ECNBA) declared Mrs Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, as the 33rd President of the Nigerian Bar Association. She polled 12,317 votes (47.18%), defeating Lateef Omoyemi Akangbe, SAN (7,934 votes; 30.39%) and Olumuyiwa Akinboro, SAN (5,855 votes; 22.43%). A total of 26,184 lawyers voted out of 82,172 eligible voters, representing a turnout of 31.86%, with allegations of disenfranchisement of eligible voters, Low voter turnout and transparency of the electronic voting system among others.
The Constitutional thinkers and statesmen like Kofi Annan had expressed that Credible elections are not only about who wins, but about the legitimacy of the process. Annan repeatedly argued that the integrity of the electoral process is as important as the outcome because losers are more likely to accept defeat when they trust the fairness of the election.
In the same vein, Montesquieu, known for developing the doctrine of the separation of powers, a foundational principle of modern constitutional democracy emphasized that political liberty depends on institutions operating according to law rather than arbitrary power. Applied to elections, this means electoral authorities must remain impartial and administer the process fairly.
It’s apposite to state that an election that produced winners with 30% turnout does not justify ‘overwhelming’ trust. The idea of winners ‘hijacking’ victory and signaling others to go to court cannot be a role model for exemplary governance. In fact, the system that authenticates 82k eligible voters while providing a platform for over 150k lawyers to pay Bar fees cannot be said to be fair to the electioneering process. Why not allow the portal used to pay Bar fees to be integrated with the election application in the same way it is being done across university portals?
The past three elections of the NBA have been riddled with controversies, and no solutions were provided to justify the pains of the losers. One of the greatest pains for every presidential election of the NBA is that the perceived loser may never get the opportunity to contest again because the election is based on geographical rotation.
Every democratic process inevitably produces winners and losers. However, the true test of democracy is not the declaration of results but the openness, freeness, fairness and willingness of stakeholders to accept lawful outcomes while pursuing legitimate grievances through established mechanisms.
The greatest consolation for an unsuccessful candidate is not the result itself but the assurance that the election was conducted freely, fairly, and transparently. A candidate who loses a credible election loses only an office; a candidate who loses a manipulated election loses confidence in democracy itself.
A comprehensive post-election review involving candidates, branches, election observers, technology experts, and ordinary members could provide the foundation for lasting reforms. Such a review should produce concrete recommendations capable of improving future elections rather than merely documenting past disagreements.
In every democratic contest, whether political or professional, there can only be one winner. The reality of electoral competition is that not every candidate will emerge victorious. However, the greatest consolation available to a losing candidate is not a political appointment, financial compensation, or public sympathy. Rather, it is the confidence that the election was conducted in a free, fair, transparent, and credible manner.
This principle is particularly important in elections conducted by professional bodies such as the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), whose legitimacy rests upon adherence to the rule of law, due process, and institutional integrity. The controversies surrounding the election should not merely become another chapter in the NBA’s political history. Instead, they should provide an opportunity for institutional reforms.
The incoming administration will inherit not only the mandate of those who voted for it but also the responsibility to rebuild confidence among members who remain dissatisfied with aspects of the process. Inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability will determine whether the administration governs as the leadership of one electoral bloc or of the entire legal profession.
The reform of the electoral process should not wait for another election, and the way forward is to set up an immediate independent audit of the entire process, which committee must be made up of professionals with expertise in Technology, Law and Psychology for the betterment of the association.
The future of the NBA should not be defined by the controversies of one election but by the reforms that emerge from it. Every institutional democracy evolves through difficult moments, and mature organizations convert disagreements into opportunities for improvement.
If stakeholders choose dialogue over division, reform over recrimination, and institutional integrity over personal interests, the 2026 election may ultimately be remembered not for its controversies but as the catalyst for a stronger, more transparent, and more credible Nigerian Bar Association.
The panacea to this malfunction does not require rocket science, the solution before the NBA is therefore clear: the winner must accept lack of integrity of the election as late Yaradua did and move beyond the controversy, embrace meaningful reform, and ensure that future elections inspire confidence not only among lawyers but also among the wider Nigerian public that looks to the Bar as a guardian of justice and the rule of law.
The Bar must work effectively in my lifetime.
Fatai Abiodun Esq, a legal practitioner and ICT Expert writes from Abuja.
08072464004
