By Stephen Simon
Question 1: Adoption of candidates by regional forums
“Thank you for that question. The truth is this practice belongs in the dark ages not in 2026. Certainly, adoption by regional fora may have had some utility in the past, but in today’s NBA it has become more divisive than unifying. Particularly as it is based on tribe and not really the region. As a lawyer practicing in Lagos Egbe Amofin do not speak for me and I have no representation in that association. Lawyers across the country want to exercise their individual choice, not be told who to support by blocs. Adoption risks alienating members and undermining the democratic spirit of the Association. At this point in our history, open competition, free choice and universal suffrage are far more salutary than regional endorsements.”
Question 2: Choice of IT company for elections
“The credibility of our elections rests heavily on the IT company chosen to manage the process. If the selection is not transparent, it naturally breeds suspicion. Any choice can be faulted if the procurement process was opaque, if the company lacks proven expertise in secure electronic voting, or if there are conflicts of interest. What we need is not just competence but also trust — the perception of impartiality is as important as technical capacity. Having said that, there are tools available to monitor the process and ensure it is not compromised and any candidate who has reservations should take the necessary steps now. Digital activities always leave a footprint that can be easily identified.
Question 3: Delegates system vs. universal suffrage
“I stand firmly on the side of universal suffrage. The NBA is a diverse body, and every lawyer deserves a voice in choosing its leadership. The delegates system concentrates power in the hands of a few, which is contrary to democratic ideals. Universal suffrage may be more complex to administer, but with the right IT infrastructure, it ensures inclusivity and legitimacy.”
Question 4: Memo from the AGF’s office
“It raises serious concerns about autonomy. The NBA is an independent professional body, and its elections should be managed internally. Unless there is clear and compelling evidence of malpractice, halting the process on external directives risks undermining our independence. Transparency concerns should be addressed by the NBA itself, not imposed from outside.”
Question 5: Should NBA presidency be exclusive to SANs?
“Leadership of the NBA should never be and has never been the exclusive preserve of SANs. Olumide Akpata is not a SAN, the presidency is about vision, integrity, and service. Restricting it to SANs would be undemocratic and elitist. Every qualified lawyer should have the opportunity to lead, regardless of title.”
Question 6: Female NBA president
“Absolutely, I would advocate for the emergence of a female president. The NBA has yet to elect a woman to its highest office, despite the immense contributions of female lawyers. Supporting female leadership at this point in history would reflect progress, inclusivity, and the evolving role of women in our profession. It would inspire younger lawyers and demonstrate that the Bar truly values diversity at the top.”
Having said that, when I was admitted to the Bar in 1988 we were told that there are no women at the Bar and so I became a Bar MAN. And I would put competence before gender, but where we have a competent woman candidate as we undoubtedly do in this case, then diversity becomes a legitimate and serious consideration.
