In organizational practice, efficiency often drives attempts to merge roles that appear to overlap. A debate that frequently arises is whether the role of legal personnel and that of human resources (HR) personnel can be fused into one. At the surface level, both professions deal with compliance, employee issues, and workplace regulation. Yet beneath this similarity lies a profound disparity that makes such a merger not only impractical but also potentially damaging to organizational governance, compliance, and human capital development.
Legal personnel are trained to interpret and enforce the law, with their grounding rooted in statutes, precedents, and regulations. Their role in an organization is defensive in nature, shielding the entity from liability, managing disputes, and ensuring that every action aligns with the letter of the law. Human resources personnel, in contrast, are trained to understand human behavior, workplace dynamics, and the strategic alignment of people with organizational objectives. Their role is proactive, building systems for talent acquisition, performance management, employee engagement, and organizational culture. The difference is not one of semantics but of substance, and merging the two strips each of its core essence.
The Nigerian Constitution recognizes the uniqueness of professional practice. Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution clearly provides that any law inconsistent with its provisions is void. In practical terms, this constitutional supremacy implies that no organization can distort professional mandates to the extent that rights guaranteed under the Constitution are violated. For instance, Section 17(3) of the Constitution places a duty on the State to ensure equal opportunity in employment and adequate opportunity to secure suitable employment. This mandate is closely aligned with the HR function, which ensures fairness, inclusion, and equity in the workplace. Legal personnel, on the other hand, ensure that such policies are enforced within the framework of existing laws.
Similarly, the Labour Act, Cap L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, governs conditions of employment, protection of wages, contracts, and dispute resolution. Compliance with this Act is a shared interest, but the approaches differ: the lawyer ensures legality, while the HR professional ensures fairness, communication, and implementation. To collapse these into one role is to confuse advocacy with administration. Indeed, in Section 7 of the Labour Act, employers are mandated to provide employees with written terms of employment. Drafting the contract may fall within legal competence, but explaining its implications, ensuring acceptance, and embedding it within organizational practice are HR functions. The line is clear, and blurring it undermines both compliance and employee trust.
Beyond domestic law, the Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria Act (CAP C7, LFN 2004) provides statutory recognition to HR as a distinct profession. By establishing CIPM as the regulatory body, the Act affirms that personnel management requires specialized knowledge and ethical standards distinct from those of the legal profession, which is governed by the Legal Practitioners Act. To conflate the two roles within one office is to disregard the statutory recognition that each enjoys under Nigerian law.
A deeper concern arises in terms of conflict of interest. Legal officers are primarily advocates for the employer, with their fiduciary duty being to minimize liability and protect the organization’s interests. HR officers, however, must walk a dual path, balancing the employer’s goals with the fair treatment and protection of employees. For example, in a workplace harassment case, the lawyer’s instinct is to guard against litigation risks, while the HR practitioner’s role is to listen, build trust, and enforce disciplinary measures that protect organizational culture. If one individual wears both hats, employees will perceive bias, and justice will not be seen to be done—contradicting the constitutional principle of fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Organizationally, merging the roles also strips HR of its strategic essence. While legal practice is often reactive, intervening when disputes arise, HR is inherently proactive, anticipating workforce needs, designing engagement strategies, and aligning human capital with long-term goals. By conflating HR with legal functions, HR risks being reduced to a compliance-only role, which undermines Section 17(1) of the Constitution that calls for social order founded on freedom, equality, and justice.
The better approach is collaboration, not merger. Legal personnel and HR personnel must work hand in hand: while HR designs inclusive recruitment systems, legal officers ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws; while HR builds grievance redress mechanisms, legal officers prepare the organization for litigation risks. Each role complements the other, but neither can replace the other.
Therefore, the disparity between legal personnel and human resources personnel is not one of preference but of constitutional, statutory, and professional recognition. The Nigerian Constitution, the Labour Act, and the CIPM Act each affirm the distinctiveness of these roles. To marry them into one undermines not only organizational efficiency but also the legal and constitutional rights of employees. The path forward lies in reinforcing collaboration while maintaining their separateness. In this way, organizations can enjoy the dual benefits of compliance and fairness, legal protection and human engagement—both indispensable for sustainable growth.
Samuel Jekeli a Human Resources Professional Writes from FCT, Abuja.
