By Sylvester Udemezue

BACKGROUND

On 27 June 2023, ThisDay reported the emergence of Mr. John Aikpokpo-Martins as the new Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association’s Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL). [See “John Aikpokpo-martins Emerges NBA-SPIDEL Chairman”; ThisDayLive: 27 JUNE 2023]. Barely a month later, on 29 July 2023, the leadership of NBA-SPIDEL embarked on what was widely publicized as a familiarization visit to the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) in Abuja. [See: “Leadership of NBA-SPIDEL Visits the Inspector General of Police on a Familiarization Tour”; loyalnigerianlawyer; 29 JULY 2023. According to official reports, that visit was designed to “strengthen collaboration and mutual understanding” between the NBA-SPIDEL and the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) in the collective pursuit of justice, human rights, and the rule of law. That was, at least, the expectation. Unfortunately, about six months later, litigation replaces collaboration.

Fast-forward to February 2024, barely six months after that cordial “familiarization tour.” NBA-SPIDEL, under the same leadership, filed no fewer than three separate lawsuits against the same Nigeria Police Force before the Federal High Court, Abuja Division:

1. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/246/2024: John Aikpokpo-Martins & Anor (on behalf of NBA-SPIDEL) v. The Inspector-General of Police & 3 Ors.
2. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/247/2024: John Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq. & Anor (on behalf of NBA-SPIDEL) v. The Inspector-General of Police & Anor.
3. Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/248/2024: John Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq. & Anor (on behalf of NBA-SPIDEL) v. The Inspector-General of Police & Anor.

REASONABLE QUESTIONS ARISING

1. Is this not the same NBA-SPIDEL leadership that, just six months earlier, had visited the Nigeria Police Force on a friendly familiarization tour?
2. If “familiarization” was the declared purpose of that visit, why did the relationship degenerate so quickly into litigation?
3. What became of the “familiarity” and goodwill built during that meeting?
4. Why couldn’t NBA-SPIDEL leverage that newly established rapport to engage constructively with the Police before rushing to court?
5. Was litigation truly unavoidable? Was it absolutely necessary?

These are not trivial questions: they strike at the very heart of what genuine public-interest advocacy should represent.

THE CONTRADICTION: FAMILIARIZATION OR FRICTION?

With the greatest respect to the then leadership of NBA-SPIDEL, the transition from familiarization to friction in less than six months represents a clear contradiction in strategy and purpose. You went on a familiarization visit; ostensibly to build collaboration, trust, and channels of communication with the Police. Yet, when you later observed what you considered an impending wrong in an official policy of the Police, you failed to engage them constructively. Instead, you hurried to court. If the aim of that visit (“familiarization Tour”) was to establish cooperation, what then stopped NBA-SPIDEL from taking that familiarity a step further by initiating or allowing constructive engagement, dialogue, negotiation, or collaborative problem-solving? The answer, respectfully, appears simple: grandstanding, courtroom posturing, and an eagerness to grab media headlines: a great flaw of leadership in Nigeria.

THE TEST OF CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT

Yes, they went on a familiarization visit, but is there any evidence that when they later decided to drag the Police to court on behalf of the NBA, they made any genuine attempt at constructive engagement. There is no such evidence. And this is precisely where the entire episode collapses under the weight of contradiction.

CLARIFYING MY POSITION

Let it be clear, I have no personal issue with public-interest lawsuits filed by anyone in their individual capacity. However, as long as anyone continues to drag the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) into needless confrontation, animosity, and enmity with public institutions (institutions with which we ought to be partnering for progress and the promotion of the rule of law) Udems will continue to speak up. I will continue to condemn every needless, premature, and frivolous lawsuit filed in the name of the NBA. This is where Rule 15(3)(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners (RPC) 2023 becomes highly relevant. The subrule provides that “In his representation of his client, a lawyer shall not fail or neglect to inform his client of the option of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms BEFORE resorting to or continuing litigation on behalf of his client.”

The spirit of this Rule is unmistakable: Litigation should be a last resort, not the first impulse. Constructive engagement, dialogue, and non-adversarial resolution should always come first, especially when the opposing party is another public institution. When NBA-SPIDEL ignores this principle, it defeats the very purpose of public-interest advocacy, which ought to seek reform through engagement, dialogue, collaboration and cooperation, not necessarily through confrontation.

CORRECTIVE LESSONS AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

Fortunately, this episode led to a vital institutional correction. I am gratified to have been part of the team that the NBA leadership drafted in to help and which worked tirelessly and selflessly to legally restrain such excesses, ensuring that NBA-SPIDEL would never again file any lawsuit on behalf of the NBA without the prior knowledge and authorization of either the NBA President or the NBA National Executive Council (NEC). We succeeded. It is now judicially affirmed that NBA-SPIDEL has no power to institute any action in the name of or on behalf of the NBA without such prior approval by or on the directive of the NBA President or the NBA NEC. That is why, under the current NBA Presidency, SPIDEL now acts strictly with the consent and direction of the NBA President, and rightly so. This milestone was achieved thanks to the indefatigable leadership of the immediate past NBA President, whose respect for order and institutional discipline helped restore internal accountability and unity within the NBA.

CONCLUSION: RETHINKING PUBLIC-INTEREST ADVOCACY

Public-interest advocacy and litigation is vital to democracy and the rule of law. But when it degenerates into knee-jerk confrontation, grandstanding and courtroom posturing, it undermines the very ideals it claims to defend. True advocacy should build bridges, not burn them. Constructive engagement, dialogue, and mutual respect should always precede litigation. Otherwise, we risk turning familiarization visits into futile publicity tours that breed only friction and distrust. NBA-SPIDEL must, therefore, rethink its methods. The goal should not be to win headlines, but to win hearts, build partnerships, and strengthen institutions.
Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Law Teacher, Legal Practitioner and Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (TRM).
08021265545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
www.therealityministry.ngo.
(08 October 2025)