Paramount Chambers & Notary Public

05/01/2026

05/01/2026

TINUBU'S LAWYERS BILL IS FULL OF BAD INTENTIONS - PROF ODINKALU*

President Tinubu’s legal practitioners bill seeks capture and reprisal

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

▪️Photo: (Left) Bola Tinubu. .. planning to weaken the Nigerian Bar Association by subterfuge? (Right) Anselm Odinkalu raises an alarm.(Credit: Google)

Twenty-three days after the transmission by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the upper chamber of Nigeria’s National Assembly, better known as the Senate, held public hearings on 18 December 2025 to consider the Legal Practitioners Bill. At this pace, the bill will be certain to become law well before the middle of 2026.

The journey to this bill has been somewhat tortured. The last time there was meaningful legislative action on the regulation of the legal profession in Nigeria, the military were in power and that was over 50 years ago. The existing framework governing Nigeria’s legal profession has in fact evolved very little since the Legal Practitioners Act was first enacted two years after independence in 1962. Long before the onset of this millennium, it was evident that the design and regulation of Nigeria’s legal profession needed to be updated. Substantial disagreements, however, existed as to how to accomplish this.

In December 2016, then president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Abubakar Balarabe (AB) Mahmoud, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), constituted a Legal Practitioners Regulation Review Committee under the leadership of Anthony Idigbe, SAN, with a mandate to undertake consultations and rationalize proposals for the reform and regulation of Nigeria’s legal profession. As part of its work, the Idigbe Committee took soundings from the official legal profession and from branches of the NBA. The Committee comprised entirely of lawyers and, in its work, appeared to make little effort to reach out to or consult with consumers of legal services. That was a significant flaw in its process.

Upon receiving the committee’s report, the president of the NBA then set out the desired goals and ambitions of the reform he sought: “We need a legal profession” he declared, “that will inspire confidence in the Nigerian legal system such that entrepreneurship will thrive and foreigners will feel confident to invest in our country thereby generating prosperity for our people.” He complained that – afflicted as it was by chronically incapable regulation – “the Nigerian Bar Association as presently structured and managed cannot provide that leadership expected to produce these outcomes.”

For nearly two decades preceding the Idigbe Committee Report and immediately thereafter, the NBA had been led by SANs. In 2020, the membership of the association elected Olumide Akpata to lead it. An exceptional and able lawyer, Olumide made his name at the commercial Bar. It is fair to say that some traditionalists took personal affront at his election to lead the Bar.

Any hopes for a quick dash to translate into legislative reality the lofty dreams inspired by the Idigbe Committee Report were to be quickly frustrated by an internecine contest that ensued of egos and interests too complex to be rehashed here. As this contest unfolded, the original proposals of the Idigbe Committee vegetated; then mutated, before getting annihilated.

It appears that some interests within the Body of Benchers (BoB) decided in this flux to capture the profession. Much of the contest that followed over the future of the regulatory proposals was to occur within the BoB. A statutory body created by the existing Legal Practitioners Act, the BoB is described under law as “a body of legal practitioners of the highest distinction” in Nigeria responsible for admitting new entrants into the legal profession.

While the BoB sought to subordinate to itself the NBA and all other organs for the regulation of the Legal Profession, the NBA sought to argue for its independence as the professional association of lawyers in Nigeria. As this argument raged, some interests instigated a contest over the assertion of associational monopolies by the NBA with the emergence of a Nigerian Law Society (NLS), in effect forcing the NBA to battle on two fronts for its own survival.

These contests were still ongoing when in 2023, Nigeria elected a new President. Leading protagonists in the BoB, who were also counsel to the new president, acquired presidential leverage in the battle to shape the new regulatory environment. With the strategic landscape thus redefined, the NBA was left to seek tactical accommodation in shaping the content of the new Bill, with a focus on preserving its considerable revenue streams. The original ambitions outlined in 2018 for a radical reinvention of Nigeria’s legal profession suffered a tragic stillbirth.

Among its eight objectives, the bill proposes to advance public confidence in legal services; promote the public interest, rule of law and access to justice; and, above all, “ensure the independence, integrity and honour of members of the legal profession.” There is, however, a clear mismatch between the essential proposals of the Bill and these high sounding objectives.

For starters, about half of the bill is devoted to provisions for a revamped Body of Benchers, which emerges from these proposals as a supreme regulator – if not owner – of Nigeria’s legal profession. If these proposals become law, the provisions of the bill governing the BoB will prove to be the cemetery of Nigeria’s legal profession.

Far from being a guarantor of an independent Bar, the BoB created by this Bill is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ruling government. It will be funded by the Federal Government through the National Judicial Council. Among its membership, the BoB will include the Chief Justice of Nigeria; Attorney-General of the Federation; all Justices of the Supreme Court; President of the Court of Appeal and Presiding Justices of divisions of the Court of Appeal; Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and of all state High Courts (including the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory); President of the National Industrial Court; all State Attorneys-General; as well as the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chairs of Judiciary Committee in both chambers of the National Assembly if they have been lawyers for at least 15 years. The NBA’s representation in the Body will be 61, comprising its president and 60 other lawyers nominated by its National Executive Committee. It will be a no-contest.

Second, the BoB will be responsible not merely for admission into the legal profession but also for discipline. So, Body will subsume the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). Members of the Body will become, in typical Nigerian fashion, above discipline.

Third, to underscore the supremacy of the BoB, the bill now proposes that the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) can only make, retain or review rules and criteria for conferment of the rank of SAN, including any conditions for withdrawal of the rank “with the approval of the Body of Benchers.”

Fourth, in a specific act of legislative reprisal, the new bill excludes from the LPPC, the President of the NBA – until now a member of the LPPC which determines the conferment of the rank of SAN – unless he or she is a SAN. This provision is a specific reprisal against the NBA for electing in 2020, a president who was not a SAN. For that reason, this provision may, in time, become known as the “Olumide Akpata Reprisal”.

Fifth, the ambitions of the bill venture into the impossible. In addition to regulating the practice of law in Nigeria, it also purports to reserve for Nigerian lawyers only legal services in relation to any matter of Nigerian law; or in relation to any dispute or transaction with substantial nexus to Nigeria. Implicitly, the bill asserts extra-territorial effect. It is hard to see how that can work.

The bill contains other significant provisions, such as the requirement for mandatory pupillage of up to two years for new lawyers or for licensing of foreign lawyers. Even the provision concerning foreign lawyers tone-deaf. It defines a foreign lawyer as “a person entitled to practice law in a foreign jurisdiction.” By this bill, a Nigerian lawyer qualified in another jurisdiction is foreign.

Admirable though its original goals were, Nigeria’s new Legal Practitioners Bill has suffered predictable derailment. If it gets adopted in its present form, the new law will be a shrine to institutional capture. Its main achievement will be to create in members of the Body of Benches, a new breed of super lawyers. The currency of their trade will be influence peddling, the very anti-thesis of what the effort to reform the Legal Practitioners Act was meant to be.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]

14/09/2025

Paramount Chambers And Notary Public is a Public Law set specialising in Notary Services, Business Law, Property Law, Family and Civil and Criminal Litigation. Our beginnings stem from wanting to create a small but specialised team who value the success that comes from working together and being client focused. Our vision is that we work closely with our clients to make sure we achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

11/06/2025

Message PARAMOUNT CHAMBERS & NOTARY PUBLIC on WhatsApp. https://wa.me/message/6RL24GLEPU3TM1

12/05/2025

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEW UK IMMIGRATION RULES 2025

The UK government has recently introduced several changes to its immigration rules, with the stated aim of reducing net migration, prioritizing skilled workers, and ensuring that immigration benefits the UK economy and society. Here are some of the key highlights of these new rules:

Work Visas:

* Increased Skill Threshold: The qualification level for the Skilled Worker visa route has been raised from RQF Level 3 (A-level equivalent) to RQF Level 6 (bachelor's degree level). This means that only graduate-level jobs and above will typically be eligible for sponsorship.

* Salary Threshold Increases: While specific figures vary depending on the type of visa and applicant circumstances, the general trend is an increase in the minimum salary requirements for Skilled Worker visas. For Certificates of Sponsorship issued after April 9, 2025, the minimum salary threshold has increased to £25,000 per year (£12.82 per hour) for those extending visas and new applicants. The typical general threshold is £38,700.

* End to Overseas Care Worker Recruitment:

New applications for social care worker visas from overseas have been stopped. The government expects care providers to recruit domestically. Existing care workers in the UK may be able to extend their visas.
* Immigration Salary List Abolished: The Immigration Salary List (formerly the Shortage Occupation List), which offered discounted salary thresholds for certain jobs, has been abolished and replaced by a new Temporary Shortage List. Access to the points-based system for roles below degree level will be limited to occupations with long-term shortages deemed critical to the industrial strategy, for a limited time, and where employers demonstrate investment in domestic workers.
* Restrictions on Dependants for Care Workers: Care workers (SOC 6135) and senior care workers (SOC 6136) recruited after March 11, 2024, cannot bring dependants to the UK.

Family Visas:

* Increased Minimum Income for Spouse/Partner Visas: The minimum income requirement for British citizens sponsoring a spouse or partner visa has increased significantly to £29,000. Further increases to £34,500 and then £38,700 are expected, although the exact timing is not yet confirmed.
* New English Language Requirement for Adult Dependants: All adult dependants of workers and students applying for visas must now demonstrate a basic understanding of English (at A1 level). This requirement will progress to A2 level for visa extensions and B2 level for settlement.

Student Visas:
* Restrictions on Dependants: International students starting courses on or after January 1, 2024, can generally only bring partners and children if they are studying a PhD or other doctorate (at RQF level 8) or a research-based higher degree.
* Graduate Route Changes: The Graduate visa, which allows eligible international students to stay in the UK for a period after completing their studies, will be reduced from two years to 18 months.
* Tighter Compliance for Educational Institutions: Requirements for institutions sponsoring international students are being strengthened, with interventions for those close to failing their duties, including action plans and potential limits on new international student recruitment.

Settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain):

* Longer Route to Settlement:

The standard qualifying period for settlement under most work and family routes will be extended from five to ten years. Individuals may have the opportunity to reduce this period by demonstrating a significant contribution to the UK economy and society, although the specific criteria for this are still being developed.

Other Notable Changes:

* Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) Scheme Expansion: The ETA scheme, requiring individuals from certain countries to obtain electronic permission before traveling to the UK, is being expanded to include non-European nationals from January 8, 2025.
* Transition to eVisas: Physical Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) are being replaced with digital eVisas as the UK moves towards a fully digital immigration system.
* Stricter Enforcement: The government is increasing its focus on enforcing sponsor compliance and tackling abuse of the immigration system.
* Restrictions on Passing Sponsorship Costs: Employers are now prohibited from passing on certain sponsorship costs, such as the Certificate of Sponsorship fee, to skilled workers.
These changes reflect the government's commitment to controlling immigration levels, prioritizing skilled workers who can contribute to the economy, and promoting integration. It's important to note that immigration rules can be complex and are subject to further changes, so individuals should always refer to the latest official guidance from the UK government for the most up-to-date information.

01/05/2025

Celebrating our 4th year on Facebook. Thank you for your continuing support. We could never have made it without you. 🙏🤗🎉

08/04/2025

07/03/2025

SENATOR NATASHA UDUAGHAN'S SUSPENSION - THE CURRENT POSITION OF THE LAW

*The Law is that a Legislative House Cannot Suspend a Member as the Member is Not an Employee of the House*

The Law is now settled that a Legislative House cannot suspend a Member of the House as doing so will deny his constituents representation as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended). Again, the relationship between a Member of House and the House is not that of a Master Servant Relationship, instead the Member is a representative of his people whose Membership of the House is guaranteed by the Constitution and no other person or persons.The House Rules being in conflict with the Constitution is null and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution.The representation of the Legislator is guaranteed by the Constitution and the House Rules is subject to the Constitution.

This was the position of the Court of Appeal in the case of:

*SPEAKER BAUCHI STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY v HON. RIFKATU SAMSON DANNA (2017) 49 W.R.N*

This case above is the locus classicus decided by the Court of Appeal on the issue of suspension of a Member of a House of Assembly. The following are the facts of the case:

*The Respondent in this case was a member of the Bauchi State House of Assembly and she was indefinitely suspended. She filed a Suit at the Bauchi State High Court questioning the Resolution of the House. Judgment was delivered in her favor, the House appealed the issue to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the decision of the High Court.

*The court of Appeal states that the law maker, not being an employee of the House can neither be suspended nor withheld of his entitlements i.e salary and other allowances. The court while making decision on the provision of section 111 CFRN 1999 states: “The fixing of salaries and wages of the respondent lies within the province of the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission under section 111 of the constitution, certainly not the 1st and 2nd appellants. The 1st and 2nd appellants have no right to interfere with the salaries and allowances of the respondent serving as a member of Bauchi State House of Assembly. No Rules or Standing Order of Bauchi State House of Assembly can derogate these rights and privileges conferred on an elected member of the House of Assembly*…” The Court further had this to say about the illegality of the suspension:” *Any member of the Bagoro constituency could have timeously challenged the indefinite suspension of their choice representative in the Bauchi State House of Assembly on the grounds that their accrued rights had been violated or breached by the appellants. The conduct of the appellants is the tyranny of the majority against an elected minority of the Bauchi State House of Assembly*”.

The position above are the Laws on the twin issue that are subject of this exposition. The fact that some Legislative Houses are engaging in naked illegality does not obviate from the sanctity of the position of the Law which grinds slowly but surely. It is therefore my humble contention that it is an utter illegality for any Legislative House to impose on any member and indefinite suspension , as same is a gross violation of extant laws of the land and the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.It is important we are follow the law on issues to build systems .*If you protected the rule of law while in office , the rule of law will protect you , while you are out of office* .

-Douglas Ogbankwa Esq

02/02/2025

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN YAKUBU V. SIMON OBAJE: A PARADIGM SHIFT AGAINST GOVERNOR'S CONSENT UNDER THE LAND USE ACT 1978 -Simon Tabji

Introduction

In property law transactions in Nigeria, since the decision of the Supreme Court in Savanah Bank v. Ajilo1, it has been impossible for private persons to lawfully transfer or alienate their interests in land without interference by the state, in that such private persons have to first obtain consent of the state Governor before they can completely alienate their interests in land.

This position has witnessed a sharp change from what used to be the practice in property transactions, following the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Engr. Yakubu Ibrahim & Ors. v. Simon Obaje (2017) LPELR-43749 (SC), where the Court held that, private persons must not acquire Governor’s consent before they could lawfully transfer or alienate their interests in land, as long as there is no conflict between the parties and in the absence overriding public interest.

The concept of Governor’s consent under the Land Use Act

Aside from the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Land Use Act2 is the most relevant enactment that regulates the use of land in Nigeria. The Act with its much importance, was born out of the need to preserve lands in Nigeria for the good, enjoyment and purposeful use by all Nigerians and by the government of Nigeria. The Act was also inspired by the need to provide for simplified methods of land administration and to preserve the Nigeria land tenure system. In achieving its objectives, the Act vests in the Governor of the State, all lands in the territory of the State.

In order to give effect to the Governor’s power over land within the territory of the State, the Act confers power on the Governor to grant statutory right of occupancy and where individuals are desirous of transferring their interest in land, they must first obtain Governor’s consent before they can lawfully do so.

What used to be the practice – Savanah Bank v. Ajilo

The case of Savanah Bank v. Ajilo is significant in that it presented the Supreme Court the first opportunity to interpret section 22 of the land use Act. The major issue faced by the Court is whether a person who was vested with propriety right or interest in land before the commencement of the Act, therefore deemed to be holder of right of occupancy,3 needs to obtain Governor’s consent before he could alienate his interest to another person.

The Court resolved that the holders of such interests in land, before the commencement of the Act, must obtain the consent of Governor of a State before any alienation of their interest. Since then, the decision has become a classical place in property law transactions in Nigeria and has been applied in many other judgments of the Courts in Nigeria.4

Paradigm shift – Yakubu v. Simon Obaje

In Yakubu v. Simon Obaje, the Supreme Court was presented with yet another opportunity to determine whether an individual can actually alienate his interest in land without consent of the Governor.

The facts leading up to the case were that, the Respondent who was plaintiff at the trial Court, sought inter-alia; a declaration of title to land based on the claim that he obtained title vide a power of attorney executed between the Respondent and the original title holder of the certificate of occupancy. The Appellant who was the Defendant, in his statement of defence contended inter-alia; that the power of attorney relied upon by the plaintiff is unlawful and could not have transferred a valid title since it was not consented by the Honourable Minister of FCT (who is equivalent of state Governor for purpose of the Act).

The Supreme Court in resolving the issue, held per C.B Ogunbiyi JSC, who delivered the leading judgment that:

“…I agree with the Respondent’s Counsel that it is not the intendment of the legislature that section 22 of the Land Use Act, on consent would limit and deny parties of their rights to use and enjoy land and the fruits thereto in a non-contentious transaction or alienation. The section cannot be given a literal interpretation as would be seen from the preamble…

Following from the foregoing re-statement, it is clear that the essence of the Act is to preserve and protect the rights of Nigerians to enjoy and use land, and further enjoy the fruits from the land. Citizens should be allowed to transact on their properties without unnecessary and undue interference by the State. By the phrase the enjoyment of the land and the fruits thereof should be given a simple and ordinary interpretation.

In other words, the fruits of the land can be houses, installations in minerals and plants. I agree with the respondent’s counsel that it is not the intendment of the legislature that Section 22 of the Land Use Act, on consent would limit and deny parties of their rights to use and enjoy land and the fruits thereto in a non-contentious transaction or alienation. The Section cannot be given a literal interpretation as would be seen from the preamble. Section 22(1) of the Land Use Act provides that: – “It shall be unlawful for a holder of a right of Occupancy to alienate same or any part thereof by assignment, mortgage, transfer of possession, sublease or otherwise without the consent of the Governor first had and obtained.” The preambles to the Land Use Act, if looked at carefully and relating it to the case at hand, would reveal that the provision for consent of the Governor must not be applied to transfer of title or alienation of rights between private
individuals where there is no overriding public interest or conflict between the parties.” (underlined are ours for emphasis)

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has once again, through its decision in Yakubu & Ors. vs. Simon, played its role as a policy Court by using the law as an instrument of social change, to ease the difficulty faced in property law transactions in Nigeria. It goes without saying that the huge number of financial resources and government bureaucratic processes which sometimes cause avoidable delays in property transaction in Nigeria, can significantly be reduced by the application of this decision.

31/12/2024