The ongoing controversy surrounding the N300 million donation by the Rivers State Government under Governor Siminalayi Fubara to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for its forthcoming Annual General Conference has become a subject of national discourse, legal curiosity, and political undertones.
Originally, the funds were received by the NBA as part of the traditional goodwill often extended by state governments to support the logistical and financial demands of hosting thousands of lawyers from across Nigeria. It is not uncommon, indeed it has become a norm for both public and private entities to donate generously to the NBA to help it meet the overwhelming obligations of its annual conference.
However, this year’s situation has taken an unexpected turn. While Port Harcourt, the capital of Rivers State, was initially considered as the host city for the 2025 NBA Annual General Conference, the venue was later changed to Enugu.
This change of venue was due to the action of President Bola Tinubu GCFR in setting aside democratically elected structures in the State and appointing a sole administrator, a retired security official to run the governance of the State for six months.
Nba leadership felt enraged and minced no words in condenming the action and demanding a reversal.
The newly-installed emergency government in Rivers State, under the control of the Sole Administrator Mr. Ibas, is now demanding a refund of the N300 million donation, asserting that the funds were expressly given for the purpose of hosting the conference in Port Harcourt. This contrasts sharply with the position of the NBA leadership, which insists the money was a general contribution, unsolicited and without express conditions, towards the conference.
The implication of this disagreement is significant. The Sole Administrator, whose very legitimacy has been called into question by the NBA and others, now alleges that the criticism of his emergence by the NBA may have been influenced by bias, pointing to the financial donation as a possible source of undue influence. The situation escalated further with the issuance of a threat of legal action against the NBA should the body fail to refund the money.
As a legal practitioner and a stakeholder in the NBA, I find the situation both curious and instructive. If this matter proceeds to court, it will no doubt offer a valuable opportunity to demystify and clarify the legality and propriety of professional bodies receiving financial support from government entities. This goes beyond the NBA, it extends to other associations such as the Nigerian Medical Association, Nigerian Union of Journalists, Nigerian Society of Engineers, and others.
The central legal and ethical questions are as follows:
- Was the donation conditional or unconditional?
- Was it a contractual obligation or a voluntary act of public goodwill?
- Does the change of venue frustrate the intention behind the donation, assuming one existed?
- Can a new government legally reclaim funds donated by its predecessor without clear evidence of misappropriation or fraud?
It will also be fascinating to see whether the now-suspended Governor Fubara will be compelled, either by the pending inquiry initiated by the Sole Administrator or through public pressure to make an official statement clarifying the intention behind the donation. That clarification could very well be the turning point in this escalating saga.
Until then, the NBA must remain calm, professional, and legally grounded in its response. Regardless of the eventual outcome, this moment will be remembered as one that helped shape jurisprudence on the obligations and boundaries of professional bodies in relation to government patronage.
We await the NBA’s next move. And perhaps more importantly, we await the voice of Governor Fubara. Will it be a bombshell? Time will tell.
Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani, SAN
Legal Practitioner and Public Affairs Analyst, writes from Abuja.
