By Johnson Babalola
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has always been more than a professional guild of lawyers. It has played a historic role in defending the rule of law and challenging abuses of power. That tradition rightly gives it a voice in governance and national policy debates.
But there is a fine line between engaging with politics and slipping into partisanship. The controversy at this year’s NBA Annual General Meeting (AGM) shows why that line must be respected.
During a panel on economic policy, the moderator turned to the audience of lawyers and asked whether their lives were better under the current government or not. At first glance, it may have seemed like a harmless question, but in truth it was inappropriate. It echoed the campaign-style slogan — “Are you better off now?” — a partisan framing that turns professional dialogue into a referendum on government.
The NBA’s role is to interrogate policy, not to poll its members on partisan satisfaction. Lawyers, like other Nigerians, hold diverse political views. A question like that risks turning the Association into a political stage, undermining its credibility as a neutral defender of the rule of law.
This is not how leading professional bodies abroad conduct themselves. The Canadian Bar Association engages government and opposition on justice issues, but it does not ask whether life is better under Carney or any prime minister. The UK’s Bar Council critiques budgets and reforms, but it frames the discussion around access to justice, not partisan approval ratings. Even in the United States, the American Bar Association takes strong policy positions without reducing its forums to “Biden versus Trump” debates.
The NBA must adopt the same discipline. Engagement with government is vital — Nigerians expect it to scrutinize economic and political policies. But the framing must always be issue-based: “How have fiscal choices affected contracts, access to justice, and the independence of the judiciary? How do policies measure up against constitutional guarantees?” These are the questions that keep the NBA relevant and respected.
The Association would do well to develop internal guidelines for political engagement at its events. Politicians should be welcome, but discussions must remain anchored on law, policy, and governance. Moderators in particular should exercise restraint, avoiding questions that echo campaign rhetoric.
The NBA’s credibility is one of its greatest assets. Once it is seen as partisan, its moral authority in national discourse diminishes. But if it stays above the fray — challenging power on the basis of law and justice — it can continue to be one of the few voices Nigerians trust to speak truth to power.
The NBA must choose carefully. Its strength lies in being the guardian of law, not the echo chamber of politics.
NB: Johnson Babalola, a lawyer, practices in Canada._
*@jbdlaw*
