On the 11th June, 2025, I received an e-mail message on my e-mail from the Nigerian Bar Association, hereinafter referred to as NBA, through its Institute of Continuing Legal Education, hereinafter referred to as NBA-ICLE, in regard to its Mandatory Continuing Professional Development, hereinafter referred to as MCPD. The said message was giving me notice that I (as a lawyer) must fulfill the 5 CPD minimum requirements through any of the listed activities as follows:
- Attending the NBA Annual General Conference;
- Participating in approved and accredited NBA Branch CPD Programmes;
iii. Attending NBA-ICLE training organized by Approved Service Providers;
- Attending CPD Programmes where approved training is delivered;
- Joining accredited training sessions organized by NBA Sections and Fora;
- Participating in NBA-ICLE online training sessions;
vii. Publishing articles in NBA Branch, Institutional, or Faculty Journals (subject to Board approval and CPD credit allocation).
The message further stated thus ‘Please be advised: Without Continuing Professional Development (CPD), you will not receive a license or official stamps. For the 2026 legal year and beyond, compliance with the MCPD Rules is no longer optional. It is a mandatory requirement for all legal practitioners in Nigeria.’. (Underlining is mine for emphasis). It went further to state that ‘Crucially, without a valid practice certificate/license, you will not be able to purchase or use NBA stamps for your legal documents. This enforcement mechanism is directly in line with:
- Rules 12(3)(a)-(b) of the 2023 Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC): These rules provides that A lawyer, unless he holds an Annual Practicing Certificate issued by the Nigerian Bar Association under this rule, shall not, as a legal practitioner – (a) conduct or take part in any proceedings in the court, judicial tribunal, or panel of enquiry; (b) sign any documents, pleadings, affidavits, depositions, application, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions or similar documents and processes; or (c) file any such documents as a legal practitioner legal officer or adviser of any Government Department or Ministry or any company or corporation.
- Rule 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules: This rule, and others within the MCPD framework, explicitly outline the requirements for continuous professional development and the consequences of non-compliance, including but not limited to the non-issuance of the annual practice license and, by extension, access to NBA stamps.’
Finally, and most interestingly, the message stated that
‘What This Means for YOU: Your Practice Depends on It!
Your ability to practice law, represent clients, and be recognized as a legal practitioner in good standing is now inextricably linked to your adherence to the MCPD Rules. No CPD means no practice license, and no practice license means no NBA stamps. Without these, your ability to conduct legal business will be severely hampered.’ (Underlining is mine for emphasis).
This paper is of the firm submission that only the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria is statutorily empowered to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually not the Nigerian Bar Association! Hence, this paper.
Respectfully, in my humble submission, the practice of law or the legal profession is an issue of statute by which only the National Assembly of Nigeria has been Constitutionally empowered to ‘designate’ by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)-herein after referred to as the Constitution. Item 49 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Constitution is clear on this point when it provides thus
‘Professional Occupation as may be designated by the National Assembly’.
Also, by section 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Constitution further provide on the exclusive powers of the National Assembly to make laws on the Professional Occupation of the legal practice or legal profession when it provides thus
‘4.—(1) The legislative powers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be vested in a National Assembly for the Federation which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
(2) The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.
(3) The power of the National Assembly to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the Exclusive Legislative List shall, save as otherwise provided in this Constitution, be to the exclusion of the Houses of Assembly of States.’.
Now, sequel to the provisions of the Constitution above, the National Assembly has enacted the Legal Practitioners’ Act, 2004-herein after referred to as LPA, designating the legal profession and making laws on who is a lawyer as well as the practice of the law of a lawyer including the qualifications for the issuance of the practice licence of a lawyer. Thus, Section 2 of the LPA has provided on who is entitled to practice law when it provides in section 2(1) of the Act thus.
‘2. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to practise as a barrister and solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll.’.
Furthermore, section 7(1) of the LPA is clear on the issue of who is to be enrolled as a lawyer (as relevant in the present context of Nigerian lawyers) where it provides thus
‘7. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be entitled to have his name enrolled if, and only if-
(a) he has been called to the Bar by the Benchers; and
(b) he produces a certificate of his call to the Bar to the registrar.
Furthermore, Section 8(1) of the LPA has granted every legal practitioner the right of audience (in other words, the right to practice law as a lawyer) in all courts of law sitting in Nigeria, when it provides thus
- (1) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection and of any enactment in force in any part of Nigeria prohibiting or restricting the right of any person to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings before the Supreme Court or the Sharia Court of Appeal or any area or customary court, a legal practitioner shall have the right of audience in all courts of law sitting in Nigeria. (Underlining and the colouring of the words are mine for emphasis).
Furthermore, in my humble submission, section 8(2) of the LPA has laid down the conditions for legal practice and for issuance of annual practice licence to a lawyer and who is to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and issue the said practice licence annually to the effect that ‘the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’ shall carry out all these functions, where it provides thus
(2) No legal practitioner (other than such a person as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 2 of this Act) shall be accorded the right of audience in any court in Nigeria in any year, UNLESS HE HAS PAID TO THE REGISTRAR IN RESPECT OF THAT YEAR, A PRACTISING FEE–
(a) in the case of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, of N200;
(b) in the case of a person of 15 or more years standing as a legal practitioner at the beginning of that year, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, of N100;
(c) in the case of a person of more than 10 but less than 15 years standing as a legal practitioner at the beginning of that year, not being a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, of N75;
(d) in the case of a person of more than 5 but not more than 10 years standing as a legal practitioner at the beginning of that year, of N40; and
(e) in any other case, of N20.
(3) The Attorney-General of the Federation may, after consultation with the Bar Council, from time to time vary the various rates of practising fees specified in subsection (2) of this section.
(4) The registrar shall-
(a) issue to every person by whom a practising fee is paid in respect of any year a receipt for the fee in the prescribed form; and
(b) as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of January in each year and thereafter from time to time during the year as he considers appropriate cause to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year; and
(c) pay over to the association as soon as may be after the end of each year a sum equal to nine tenths of the aggregate amount of the practising fees received by him in pursuance of this section during the year, and a receipt purporting to be issued and list purporting to be printed in pursuance of this subsection in respect of any year shall be evidence that the person named in the receipt or, as the case may be, that any person named in the list has paid to the registrar the practising fee in respect of that year.
(5) Legal practitioners appearing before any court, tribunal or person exercising jurisdiction conferred by law to hear and determine any matter (including an arbitrator) shall take precedence among themselves according to the table of precedence set out in the First Schedule to this Act.’ (Underlining and colouring of words are mine for emphasis).
Furthermore, the interpretation of ‘Registrar’ in the above Section 8 of the LPA has been defined under section 24 of the LPA to mean ‘the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court’. In fact, as can be observed, what amounts to practicing licence for a lawyer to be entitled to practice as a lawyer in a particular year is ‘printed in the prescribed form’ a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year. Also, this list is not free of charge but shall be paid for and the Supreme Court has been losing revenue in this regard. Assuming, the Supreme Court of Nigeria charges for instance, the sum of One Thousand Naira (N1,000.00) for the list, and there are over Two Hundred Thousand (200,000) lawyers applying for this list annually (which may also be electronically generated upon the payment of the chargeable practicing fee and the fee to obtain the list), one can imagine the millions of naira that the Supreme Court would have generated from that ‘list’ alone and one can further imagine the Billion of Naira that the Supreme Court has been losing as ‘INTERNAL GENERATED REVENUE (IGR) from that ‘list’ alone!
To this essence, in my humble submission, issues of collection of practicing fee and the printing of the list which serves as a practice licence or having the effect or implication as a practice licence, only the ‘Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’ is statutorily empowered by the LPA to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year not the Nigerian Bar Association! Also, there is no where in the LPA where the name of the NBA or any other name apart from the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, has been mentioned and or delegated to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year!
Furthermore, the NBA or through its NBA-ICLE (as done in the message sent to my email as reported above) has relied on the provisions of Rule 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and Rule 12(3)(a)-(b) of the 2023 Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC)- herein after referred to as RPC, to take a position and or make a decision and or arrogate to itself the powers to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually (even though, the Supreme Court and or the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court has been non-functional in complying with the provisions of the LPA in regard to the collection of annual practicing fees from lawyers and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year). This paper has therefore considered in regard the status of the said Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a)-(b) of the RPC in relation to the LPA, assuming that the said provisions therein were validly made. To this extent, I humbly submit that the Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a) -(b) of the RPC in relation to the LPA are at best subsidiary legislations and the law is clear that a subsidiary legislation (such as the Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a)-(b) of the RPC) does not supersede the provisions of a statute.
In the case of Ewete v. Gyang (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 496) 728, the court made a pronouncement on the resolution of conflict between an enabling law and subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The Court held thus.
“it is settled law that a subordinate legislation is prima facie, ultra vires if it is inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the statute by which the enabling power is conferred.’.
Essentially, a subsidiary legislation (such as the Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a)-(b) of the RPC), being made pursuant to the power conferred by the principal legislation or enactment, derives its force and efficacy from the principal legislation to which it is secondary and complimentary. Unarguably, it is the principal law that provides subsidiary legislation the source of its existence. In other words, without the principal law, there can be no subsidiary legislation. For instance, in the case of in Gov. Oyo State v. Folayan (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt. 413) 292, the Supreme Court, Per Onu, JSC held that “A subsidiary legislation derives its validity from a substantive law”. Also, See the cases of: Din v. A.G.F. (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.147)?; Olanrewaju v. Oyeyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 229; Njoku & Ors v. Ihenatu & Ors. (2008) LPELR -3871 (CA). Also, see the cases of: NNPC & ANOR. V. FAMFA OIL LTD. (2012) LPELR-7812(SC) (Consolidated) Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC; see also FAMFA OIL LIMITED v. A-G FED & ANOR (2007) LPELR-9023(CA) where the Court of Appeal, Per Abdullahi, JCA held thus: “It is the law that subsidiary legislations must conform with the principal law which provided the source of their existence.”
In the same vein, it is worth noting the case of Olanrewaju v. Oyeyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt. 697) 229, where the Court of Appeal reiterated the principle of law that a subsidiary legislation, being one that derives its authority and validity from and subject to the provisions of the parent enabling statute, cannot expand or curtail the provisions of the substantive statute. This position of law was succinctly emphasized by His Lordship, Tabai, JCA (as he then was) when My Lord held thus
“It is settled law that a subsidiary legislation derives its authority and validity from and subject to the provisions of the parent enabling statute. It follows therefore that a subsidiary legislation cannot expand or curtail the provisions of the substantive statute. It must be within the authority derived in the main enabling statute.”. Also see: Olanrewaju v. Oyeyemi (2001) 2 NWLR (Pt.697)229; see also Din v. A. -G., Federation (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.87) 147; Gov., Oyo State v. Folayan (1995) 8 NWLR (pt.413) 292 at 327 and Ishola v. Ajiboye (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt.352) 506 at 621.
I wish to humbly submit that a subsidiary legislation must be in conformity with the terms of its enabling law as is. Thus, where any provision of a subsidiary legislation is inconsistent with the provisions of the Principal Statute, the provisions of such subsidiary legislation shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be declared void. See: Odeneye v. Efunga (1990) NWLR (Pt.164)618; (1990) 11-12 S.C 122, Per Karibi-Whyte, JSC.
Thus, it can be said that any attempt by the NBA or through the NBA-ICLE through the enactment of the Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a)-(b) of the RPC ), to rob and or take over and or deny the statutory public duties and functions of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year is ‘ultra vires’. I also humbly submit that whatever the compromise or likely compromise that exists or that might likely exist between the NBA and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in regard to the dereliction and or abandonment of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s statutory public duties in this regard and or delegation of same to the NBA, is ultra-vires, illegal, unlawful, of no effect and null and void! The words ‘Ultra vires’ was defined by the Court of Appeal, in the case of Ekanem & Ors. v. Obu (2010) LPELR-4084, Per Ngwuta JCA, to mean ‘beyond or above the power conferred’.
Again, the Supreme Court, in the case of Psychiatric Hospital Management Board v. Ejitagha, (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt.677)154; (2000) 6 S.C (Pt. II) 1; (2000) LPELR-2930(SC), has sounded a note of warning to public bodies vested with statutory powers (which in my humble submission, includes the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria) as follows:
“It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably.” Hence, it is my humble submission that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria does not have the statutory powers to delegate and or handover or submit his statutory public power(s) in regard to the collection of annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year to either the NBA or any person as doing so (if that is the position as it is, is ultra vires of his powers and hence null and void!
As also noted in the celebrated case of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (supra) where a corporation or a body is created by or under a statute and unless such a corporation or body is authorised expressly or impliedly by the statute or instrument defining its powers, it simply has no vires or power to act outside the statute. There is plethora of authorities to the effect that where such a body acts outside the statute, the act will be held ultra vires and declared null and void.
In addition, the Supreme Court has also severally held that a subsidiary or subordinate legislation is prima facie ultra vires if it is inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the statute by which the enabling power is conferred and in this case, section 8 of the LPA and the entire provisions of the LPA. Therefore, it is my humble submission that the enactment of the Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a)-(b) of the RPC ), as well as the email message sent to my email on the 11th June, 2025, that unless I (as well as any other lawyer in Nigeria) earns CPD point, will not be issued practice licence and or approved stamp and seal as well as the decisions of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to delegate his statutory public powers and or functions are all ultra vires of their functions and or duties and hence null and void (it is also a position that the NBA is a private professional association in Nigeria and not a public body). In Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Ashiru, (1978) 6-7 S.C. (REPRINT) 70; see also Halsbury Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volume 6, Pages 491-492, Paragraph 743, the Supreme Court of Nigeria, per Idigbe JSC held thus:
“Subordinate legislation is invalid if it is repugnant to the general law of the country or if it is repugnant to the provision of a statute which delegates to the body or person making it, the powers so to do… Accordingly, subordinate legislation ‘is prima facie ultra vires if it is inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the statute by which the enabling power is conferred …and equally, of course, if it purports to affect existing statutes expressly.”
Furthermore, it is my humble submission that every lawyer is automatically entitled to practice as a lawyer in any court and to do all things that a lawyer is by law empowered to do and not limited to:
(a) conduct or take part in any proceedings in the court, judicial tribunal, or panel of enquiry;
(b) sign any documents, pleadings, affidavits, depositions, application, instruments, agreements, deeds, letters, memoranda, reports, legal opinions or similar documents and processes; or
(c) file any such documents as a legal practitioner legal officer or adviser of any Government Department or Ministry or any company or corporation, once the lawyer has paid his annual practicing fee (in the particular year of practice) to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, as mandated by the section 8 of the LPA!
Respectfully, in my humble submission, the procedures for a lawyer to be entitled to practice law annually has been stipulated and or laid down by section 8 of the LPA and the said section has already appointed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the only designated public person or authority to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year and the said LPA has not in any way appointed the Nigerian Bar Association or any other person to do so!
Furthermore, in I.N.E.C. v. Action Congress [2009] 2 NWLR (Pt.1126) 524 P. 616, paras D-F, where Per Salami, J.C.A. posit thus:-
“Where a method or manner of discharging responsibility is stipulated by a statutory provision it is that method that must be employed: See Co-operative and Commerce Bank Nigeria Plc v. Attorney-General of Anambra State (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 261) 528, 556 para. G, the Supreme Court stated as follows: –
“Now, it is the law that where a statute provides for a particular method of performing a duty regulated by the statute, that method, and no other must have to be adopted” In Nuhu Sani Ibrahim v. INEC & Ors. (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614)334, 352 paras. E-F, this court per Salami, JCA said that – “It is settled law that where a legislation lays down a procedure for doing a thing, there should be no other method of doing it.”
The Supreme Court in Corporate Ideal Ins. Ltd. v. Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd. (Supra) Pp. 193 – 194, held as follow:-
“It is the view of this court that where a statute clearly provides for a particular act to be done or performed in a particular way, failure to perform the act as provided will not only be interpreted as a delinquent conduct but will be interpreted as not complying with the statutory provision. It was held by this court in Adesanoye v. Adewole (2006) 14 NWLR (pt. 1000) 242 that in such a situation, the consequences of non-compliance follow notwithstanding that the statute does not specifically provide for sanction. This knocks the bottom off the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this case that because section 50(1) of the Act does not provide for sanction, the contract cannot be said to be illegal.
A contract which violently violates the provisions of a statute as in this case, with the sole aim of circumventing the intendment of the law maker is to all intents and purpose illegal null and void and unenforceable. Such a contract or agreement is against public policy and makes nonsense of legislative efforts to streamline the ways and means of business relations. This court, and any other court for that matter would not be allowed to be used to enforce any obligations arising therefrom.”
It is also my humble submission that it is never the intention of the National Assembly as the legislator that any other person other than the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria (who is in charge of the public register of the enrollment of all lawyers duly called to Bar and enrolled in accordance with the LPA) to so collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year and the LPA would have stated if any other person is intended and the Supreme Court of Nigeria has in the case of A-.G. Lagos State v A-.G. Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 904) 1 SC., Per EDOZIE, J.S.C. at pages 136-137, paras. H-A, emphasised on the settled principle of construction of statute to the effect that the ‘legislature does not use any word in vain’ i.e. when the section 8 appointed the ‘Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’ to so deal with the practice fee and the list thereto, among other incidental functions: see U.T.C. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Pamotei (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.103) 244 at 303; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 177) 507 at 579.
I therefore humbly submit that unless and until the extant provisions in the LPA designating only the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the only public statutory person to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year, as provided in section 8 of the LPA, is emended to state or provide otherwise or designate any other person to do so, the provisions of the said section 8 of the LPA remains the law as of today! In the case of Kuusu v. Udom (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 127) 421, it was stated expressly that a statute can only be amended or repealed by another statute which can only be done by the National Assembly. Furthermore, in the case of Din v. Attorney General of the Federation (1988) 4 NWLR (pt.87) 147, it was stated that a legal notice (in this case the Rules: 23 of the 2025 NBA MCPD Rules and 12(3)(a)-(b) of the RPC ), as well as the email message sent to my email on the 11th June, 2025, that unless I (as well as any other lawyer in Nigeria) earns CPD point, will not be issued practice licence and or approved stamp and seal as well as the decisions of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to delegate his statutory public powers and or functions) being a subsidiary legislation does not have a legal life as it cannot stand alone as a separate piece of legislation.
Finally, having regard to the above legal arguments and submissions that I have made in this paper, I humbly submit that ‘only the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria’ is statutorily empowered to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipt for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually not the Nigerian Bar Association or any other person! Also, I further humbly submit that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria does not have the statutory powers to delegate and or handover or submit his statutory public power(s) in regard to the collection of annual practicing fees from lawyers and to issue licence to practice to lawyers annually by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year to either the NBA or any person as doing so (if that is the position as it is, is ultra vires of his powers and that it is ultra vires of the powers of the NBA-ICLE and or the NBA to have threatened me and or any other lawyer in Nigeria through the email message sent to my email on the 11th June, 2025, that unless I (as well as any other lawyer in Nigeria) earns CPD point, will not be issued practice licence and or approved stamp and seal! I also humbly submit that unless and until the extant provisions in the LPA designating only the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria as the only public statutory person to collect annual practicing fees from lawyers and to issue licence to practice to lawyers by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year, as provided in section 8 of the LPA, is emended to state or provide otherwise, the provisions of the said section 8 of the LPA remains the law as of today!
It is truer, the fact that power vested in any man must and should have a limit either by the Constitution or by the statute, else, any man so vested is most likely to exceed his power and or authority.
Lord Acton had opined in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 in the following words: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”.
I therefore, humbly advise the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to desist from any further dereliction (or abandonment) of his statutory public duties of collecting annual practicing fees from lawyers and to issue licence to practice to lawyers by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year, as provided in section 8 of the LPA, henceforth!
I further (and finally) humbly submit that NBA (as a privately registered professional association, for that matter, even though recognized by law (i.e. only recognized by law and not a public professional body)) as much as the legal profession is concerned, is limited and NBA therefore does not have the constitutional and or statutory powers to usurp and or take over the statutory public duties and functions of the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria of collecting annual practicing fees from lawyers (and issue receipts for the payments) and to issue licence to practice to lawyers by causing to be printed in the prescribed form and put on sale a list or supplementary list of the legal practitioners by whom practising fees have been paid in respect of that year, as provided in section 8 of the LPA!
Email: hameed_ajibola@yahoo.com, 08168292549.
