By Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN
I have read with respectful interest the recent piece authored by brilliant mind, Dr. Ope Banwo, titled “The NBA and the N300 Million ‘Donation’ Mess – Is it Legit Fundraising or Proof of a Compromised Lawyers’ Body?” While I appreciate Dr. Banwo’s concern for ethical purity in public institutions and Associations like NBA, his attempt to caricature the Nigerian Bar Association’s acceptance of a financial donation from the Rivers State Government of His Excellency Fubara as a moral collapse or institutional compromise is, at best, overly idealistic and, at worst, dangerously disconnected from the operational realities of our present national context.
Let me offer a more grounded, pragmatic, and constitutionally defensible perspective.
1. The NBA Committed No Legal or Moral Wrong.
Nowhere in the Constitution of the NBA or in any statute regulating professional conduct has it been declared illegal or unethical for a state government to support the Bar, especially in the context of hosting or facilitating its Annual General Conference. The argument that a donation, in and of itself, constitutes a compromise of institutional independence lacks both legal foundation and factual proof. Dr. Banwo’s position is emotive, not evidential. This is without prejudice to NBA returning the fund if they are convinced that it is the right to do.
One would have expected the learned Dr. to cite where such donation contravenes the Legal Practitioners Act, the NBA Constitution, or any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Instead, he launches into broad, moralistic rhetoric that suggests that receiving help to organize a professional event is a stain on the soul of the Bar. With respect, this is speculative philosophy, not pragmatic institutional analysis.
2. State Support for National Conferences is Not Unusual
Across professional associations in Nigeria – medical, engineering, educational, even accounting, it is routine for state governments to offer financial and logistical support, especially when such associations bring their national conferences to those states. The harsh judgement on NBA over the present donation is very unfair and unacceptable.
Is it Dr. Banwo’s argument that the NBA should finance a multi-million-naira national conference purely from annual dues of members, many of whom are struggling to meet basic financial obligations in today’s Nigeria? Most private donors are finding it difficult to render support due to harsh economic realities in Nigeria. Is such suggestion and expectations realistic, or is it a utopian ideal unsuited to our economic climate?
A Bar Association that aims to remain independent in thought and effective in impact must be resourced. Denying assistance from state actors, who may genuinely wish to support intellectual and professional engagements, is not a badge of morality; it is the embrace of unnecessary hardship. I am of the view that proper guidelines be mapped out to guide the acceptance, and conditions well spelt out for future engagements with them.
3. Donation Is Not a Bribe; Intent for it Matters.
It is misleading, if not disingenuous, to imply that all donations from political actors are tainted. The mens rea, the intention behind the act, matters in both law and morality. The N300 million donation, to the best of available information, was neither tied to any political loyalty nor offered in exchange for silence or support. Anyone with contrary evidence can provide.
As stated earlier, unless there is concrete evidence that the Rivers State Government attached conditions to the donation, or that the NBA leadership acted in a way that directly undermines the Bar’s neutrality in exchange for this funding, it is inappropriate to call it a bribe or a compromise.
4. We Must Not Demonize Benefactors to Appear Holy
Dr. Banwo’s argument seems to suggest that accepting financial support from any public officer automatically makes the Bar complicit in their alleged political sins. This is the kind of extreme moral absolutism that has no place in responsible advocacy and modern realism.
Should we vilify those who help us merely because they occupy public office? Are governors demons whose hands we cannot shake or receive aid from without risking our moral integrity? This is not how institutions function, not even in the most ethically structured democracies.
5. Realism Must Temper Rhetoric
Dr. Banwo urges a refund of the donation, perhaps as a form of moral atonement. That suggestion, though dramatic, ignores the fact that the NBA’s national conference planning involves massive logistics, accommodations, technology, and security that member dues cannot cover alone.
What, then, is the alternative? To run a substandard conference? To scale down our operations to match a depleted treasury, thereby reducing our relevance and visibility in national discourse?
If we are to insist on idealistic financial purity, we must first build an internal revenue base that can shoulder the burden of a world-class conference. Until then, moral high horses cannot pull this cart.
6. This Is Not a Crisis, It’s a Conversation
The conversation about institutional independence, public perception, and ethical boundaries is a legitimate one, and I raised it in my first article. A new practice or jurisprudence may emerge after this matter dies down either administratively or through court pronouncement.
However, framing this donation as a scandal is unfair to the NBA and disingenuous to the public.
The Bar must continue to engage with the state and society. We must hold governments accountable, yes, but not at the expense of refusing cooperation, collaboration, or assistance that can help strengthen the legal profession and its institutions. I may be wrong for I do not claim to know it all.
7. Let’s Not Burn the Bridge While Trying to Stay Pure
To maintain a principled stance without becoming puritanical is the real test of leadership. The NBA has not sold its conscience. It has simply accepted a donation, without strings, to advance its professional goals. That, in itself, is not a sin.
If we truly believe in institutional progress and growth, the better approach is not to sever public partnerships but to manage them transparently, ethically, and with a clear firewall between sponsorship and influence. That is a better and godly position if you ask me.
Conclusion: Let the Bar Be Responsible, Not static.
Dr. Banwo wants the Bar to be bold again. I concur. But boldness is not the refusal of help from credible sources, it is the courage to accept support without surrendering principles and integrity.
The NBA is not for sale. But neither is it a monastery. It exists in the real world, funded by real people, facing real challenges.
Let us strive for excellence, I admonish. Let us build a Bar that is both principled and practical. It is possible if we believe, my Dr. Banwo.
Ubani, a public affairs analyst and legal practitioner is Past Chairman, NBA Section on Public Interest and Development Law (SPIDEL)
