Court Begins Hearing Suit Challenging NBA’s Authority Over Stamp, Seal and CLE

The Federal High Court, Abuja, yesterday commenced hearing a suit filed by Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIFF) against the Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and others, challenging the statutory powers of the NBA to regulate Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and the mandatory use of the NBA Stamp and Seal by legal practitioners.

Presiding Judge, Justice Binta Nyako, directed that the substantive suit be heard, noting that the case was instituted by Originating Summons and all processes had been duly filed. This ruling came despite the plaintiff’s counsel seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the NBA from enforcing the disputed rules pending the determination of the matter.

At the center of the suit is ABLIFF’s claim that the NBA lacks authority under the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) and the 1999 Constitution to impose compulsory CLE requirements or regulate the issuance and use of lawyers’ Stamp and Seal.

Represented by Hameed Ajibola, Esq., the plaintiffs argued that only the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court has the power under the LPA to issue practice licences, adding that neither the NBA nor the General Council of the Bar possesses constitutional or statutory powers to regulate legal practice in the manner currently being enforced.

Counsel for the NBA, however, drew the court’s attention to alleged publications and social media commentary by the plaintiffs’ legal team, in disregard of previous court warnings to refrain from “trial by media.”

The court is tasked with determining whether the NBA and the General Council of the Bar have statutory authority under the LPA and the Rules of Professional Conduct to regulate CLE, Stamp, and Seal. The court will also examine ABLIFF’s legal capacity (locus standi) to bring the action, in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Shittu v. Legale.

Additionally, the court will consider whether the originating summons is competent, given claims that it mixes competent and incompetent issues, joins matters already settled by precedent, and whether the suit was filed within the timelines stipulated by the Federal High Court Rules, particularly Order 46 Rule 6, factoring in the court vacation from December 19, 2025, to January 6, 2026.

The case has been adjourned to March 6, 2026, for judgment.