When Mazi Afam Osigwe signed off on a press release in the name of the Nigerian Bar Association some days ago, he appeared to have spoken not only the mind of many Nigerians but also as an impartial arbiter. As president of the Nigerian Bar Association, there is perhaps no other Nigerian better placed at the moment to speak in the name of the Bar. Considering the association’s activist role during years of military rule, when it stood against regimes that paid little regard to citizens’ rights, its voice still carries weight.
Like Joe Ajaero’s Nigeria Labour Congress and other professional bodies, however, today’s NBA differs significantly from its past. The era of fearless activism has gradually given way to what some describe as “cashtivism” — individuals driven more by personal gain than public interest. These actors align with political interests and speak like representatives of factions rather than neutral stakeholders. Still, Osigwe’s intervention was measured and delivered with dignity, even if traces of frustration were evident during his interview on Channels Television.
The reality, however, is that the NBA itself is increasingly perceived as part of the problem it seeks to address. Its neutrality is often questioned, with growing concerns about its alignment with political interests. Although Osigwe attempted to strike a balance, his position exposed the strain of maintaining neutrality in a deeply polarised environment. Nonetheless, his willingness to call for introspection within both the Bar and the Bench reflects a measure of courage.
His call for judges and lawyers to steer clear of politics echoes longstanding public concerns. The judiciary has been widely criticised for its role in the decline of Nigeria’s democratic standards. Justice is increasingly seen as compromised, often perceived as favouring the highest bidder. In many cases, courts have become arenas where political outcomes are decided, undermining public trust.
Many judges operate under difficult conditions poorly paid, overworked, and in inadequate environments factors that have contributed to systemic weaknesses. At the same time, political actors have imported corrupt practices into the judiciary, influencing outcomes and eroding institutional integrity. The result is a system where some judicial officers, through questionable means, accumulate wealth far beyond what their legitimate earnings would permit.
This has led to a situation where some elected officials owe their positions not to voters but to judicial pronouncements. Courts, rather than the electorate, increasingly determine political leadership, raising serious questions about the health of Nigeria’s democracy.
While Osigwe rightly criticised these developments, his intervention appeared one-sided, focusing largely on the executive arm, particularly the APC-led government, as the source of political challenges. His remarks, coming amid controversies surrounding opposition parties, suggested a reluctance to fully acknowledge the role of internal party conflicts and undemocratic practices within opposition ranks.
The quality of governance, however, is closely tied to the strength and integrity of the opposition. Many opposition actors have been accused of undermining internal party structures, leading to disputes that inevitably end up in court. These are issues that require adherence to party rules and legal processes, rather than external attribution of blame.
Osigwe’s argument that political parties should develop internal mechanisms for dispute resolution underscores the problem many lack such structures. In their absence, the courts remain the final arbiters. Ultimately, all stakeholders must commit to the rule of law, even as questions persist about the NBA’s own conduct, including controversies surrounding financial dealings linked to its activities.
VANGUARD
