The N300 million donated to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) by the Rivers State Government for the hosting of the 2025 Annual General Conference (AGC) sparked a huge row after the Sole Administrator, Admiral Ibok-Kete Ibas (rtd.), demanded a refund following the venue change. Senior lawyers have weighed in on the way out, reports The Nation.
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) found itself enmeshed in a huge storm after the Rivers State Sole Administrator, Admiral Ibok-Kete Ibas, demanded a refund of N300 million donated to the association.
He insisted that the donation was authorised by the suspended governor, Siminalayi Fubara, on the understanding that the Annual General Conference (AGC), billed for August 22 to 28, will be held in Port Harcourt, the Rivers capital.
Following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers, which the NBA condemned as unconstitutional, the association chose Enugu as the host city in protest.
Following the demand for a refund, the NBA, in a statement by its AGC 2025 Planning Committee Chair Emeka Obegolu (SAN), clarified that it decided on Port Harcourt as the host city last August and that it was not subject to any bidding process or payment of any hosting rights.
“The host city has no hosting rights, and there is no representation by the NBA that the conference must be held in a chosen city.
“Traditionally, because of the enormous cost involved in hosting the AGC, the NBA Conference Planning Committee approaches organisations, agencies of government and state governments for support and the support requested is unconditional and not tied to hosting rights or any rights whatsoever.
“Recent NBA conferences have been supported by different state governments, corporate organisations, ministries, departments and agencies whose budgets accommodate corporate social responsibilities and share the same vision with the NBA.
“Such financial support is in the form of gifts, partnerships or sponsorships. The money from Rivers State was a gift and was not tied to any purported hosting right for the NBA AGC,” the NBA said.
However, the state government vowed to deploy all legal processes to retrieve the state’s resources if the NBA failed to willingly refund the money.
A statement by the Senior Special Adviser on Media to Rivers State Government, Hector Igbikiowubo, insisted that the records of the government showed that the N300 million was tied to the hosting of the AGC in the state.
The statement said: “The government outrightly rejects the NBA’s recent allegation that the N300 million payment made by the state was a ‘gift’ unrelated to hosting rights for the NBA AGC 2025.
“For clarity, the Rivers State Government’s records show that the payment of N300 million to the NBA was made with the mutual understanding that Rivers State would host the 2025 edition of the NBA AGC.
“The Rivers State Government entered into this arrangement with the NBA in good faith, with the understanding that hosting the conference in the state would attract significant economic benefits to our state, positively and directly impact the businesses of our people.
“The NBA’s unilateral decision to relocate the AGC 2025 against our mutual understanding and subsequent decision to withhold the N300 million paid for the purpose of hosting the NBA AGC 2025 in Rivers State is unethical and amounts to a breach of trust.
“Failure of the NBA to immediately refund the N300 million to the Rivers State Government will compel the implementation of all legal means to recover the property of the good people of Rivers State.
“We reaffirm our willingness to engage in partnerships with all professional bodies, including the NBA, but we will not accommodate exploitation of our people and the Rivers State Government.”
The development led to debate among lawyers on whether the NBA should return the money or not.
Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN) and Dr Ope Banwo argued that the money should be refunded.
“We have no basis for retaining the ‘gift’ from Rivers State, so NBA should refund the money immediately.
“We should not hide under any semantics or bureaucracy to retain the money,” Adegboruwa said.
He added that SANs should contribute N1 million each if necessary, if there is a shortfall, assuming part of the money has been spent.
For Banwo, returning the money is not debatable.
“If the NBA wants to retain its standing as the voice of justice in Nigeria, it must return that money,” he said.
Former NBA Vice President Onyekachi Ubani (SAN) disagreed, saying the NBA was not bound to return the money.
“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,” Ubani said.
According to the SAN, the argument that a donation in itself constitutes a compromise of institutional independence lacks both legal foundation and factual proof.
“This is without prejudice to the NBA returning the fund if they are convinced that it is the right thing to do,” Ubani noted.
He, however, advised: “I am of the view that proper guidelines should be mapped out to guide the acceptance, and conditions well spelt out for future engagements with them.”
Other senior lawyers have weighed in on the debate
These include Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, Chief Mike Ozekhome, Chief Wale Taiwo, Babatunde Fashanu and Dr. Wahab Shittu, all Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs).
Kalejaye backs NBA
Kalejaye regretted that crass politics and blackmail have been introduced into what ordinarily is a gift.
He said: “It is laughable that the standards of receiving gifts, whether solicited or unsolicited, are now being set very high because the NBA took a stand against the declaration of the state of emergency in Rivers State.
“The sole administrator of Rivers claimed the money was paid as hosting rights. NBA says it is a gift.
“I would have thought that to press its case of being awarded a hosting right, the Administrator should have presented some documents which emanated from the NBA that gave the award.
“We all know how these things are done. Federal, State and even local government councils at times give financial support to formidable associations like the NBA, NMA and even ÀSUU to host their collegiate or general meetings. There is no string attached.
“I am very proud of the stand of the NBA on the Rivers on the issue.
“It showed that the N300m gift did not influence the NBA at all.
“The gift was not a personal gift from the then-sitting governor but from the coffers of the state government.
“It is wrong now to introduce crass legality into a gift that did not carry any legal obligation!
“I have heard talks about the NBA being asked to return the gift. On what ground may I say? The problem is that we play politics with everything in this country.
“The NBA, like other formidable professional associations are gatekeeper of the Nigerian state.
“To demonise the NBA in a situation where there has not been any ethical or legal infraction is not only being unfair to the NBA but also polluting the system and burning the bridge of interaction amongst the different segments of the Nigerian state. It is sad. Very sad.”
Hosting rights never monetised, says Ozekhome
Ozekhome believes a gift should be free from all encumbrances except where it is a “Greek gift”.
He said it is different from a bribe.
According to him, hosting rights are never monetised.
“When a government is going to host the NBA by traditional convention, many of them do give grants to the NBA to ease the conference that is coming up.
“The NBA wanted to host this AGC in Port Harcourt this year. Unfortunately, many intervening factors made this impossible,” he said.
According to him, the NBA was forced to relocate the AGC to Enugu “because having condemned the institutionalisation of the state of emergency and unconstitutional appointment of a sole administrator, it cannot be seen to blow hot and cold, hosting or holding the AGC in the same state being ruled by a Sole Administrator that is not democratically elected by the people”.
Ozekhome submitted that the N300 million already donated “towards NBA-AGC is not money that should be refunded to the sole administrator because it was money donated by the state government under a democratic regime”.
The SAN added: “An autocratic and selected regime cannot come and ask that money given by its predecessor in office, which was done in the interest of the state, but whose interest is now being jeopardised by the appointment of the sole administrator, should be returned.
“I think it should be a no-go area. We should not have any regret in not returning that money and in shifting the hosting of the AGC to Enugu state.
“I had initially said elsewhere that if the money was tied to the AGC, then it should be returned.
“But on a further reconsideration of the matter, having looked at the NBA constitution, I discovered that it would be a breach of the NBA constitution to return such money voluntarily donated to the body.”
Why money should be returned, by Taiwo
Taiwo believes the NBA should return the money.
He said: “In the light of that realisation that when Port Harcourt was named as the host of the NBA AGC 2025, the money now in issue was donated to the NBA.
“Whatever is donated or provided as financial support for the hosting of the AGC is recouped by the state through the injections into the local economy and the taxes and levies paid by businesses during the duration of the AGC.
“Should the NBA oblige such a demand? In my view, the NBA should be mindful of the need to protect its integrity.
“For too long, the NBA appears to have become too cosy with governments at both the federal and various states.
“The NBA is supposed to be at the forefront of the promotion of the rule of law.
“The NBA should be the guiding conscience and a moderating influence in our national life.
“With financial donations like the one now in issue, it may be a bit difficult for the NBA to maintain its independence.
“I think that’s the subtle message the Sole Administrator was trying to pass across.
“I believe that a refund to the coffers of Rivers will ensure that the NBA can maintain its independence and not be seen to be taking sides in the crisis in Rivers State.
“The purpose of the donation is to support the hosting of the AGC. If the venue is changed, let the fund so donated be returned,” he said.
Fashanu: Return money when democracy is restored
For Fashanu, the NBA was given the money because it was to host the AGC in Rivers State.
He said since the hosting of the conference has been moved to another state, the proper thing to do is to return the money.
“It is wrong of the NBA legally and morally to keep the money in the circumstances,” he said.
Fashanu added that, since understandably, the NBA opposes the appointment of Ibas, “it can make a statement that it’ll refund the money to Rivers State, not through the Sole Administrator, but when democracy is restored.”
Way out – By Shittu
Shittu noted that the controversy underscores the ethical complexities that arise when professional bodies accept financial support from public institutions.
He said it raises critical questions about transparency, institutional independence, and public accountability.
According to him, accepting large, unrestricted funds from a state government, especially during a politically sensitive period, risks compromising that independence or, at the very least, the public perception of it.
He pointed out that UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers emphasise that legal practitioners — and by extension, their representative bodies —must operate free from improper influence, particularly from the executive arm of government.
Shittu noted that in the Rivers case, the issue is not only the receipt of the funds but also how the NBA’s subsequent actions —relocating the AGC — could be interpreted.
He said that while the NBA asserts that its actions were based on principle, retaining the N300 million may give the impression that the association is leveraging public funds for private events without accountability.
He said a donation of N300 million should have triggered a formal review, agreement, and public disclosure.
Shittu cited the Law Society of Ontario and the UK Bar Council, which prohibit gifts that could be perceived to influence decision-making or compromise independence but encourage full disclosure and prior approval of any such sponsorship or funding.
He said in the case of the NBA, the absence of a written agreement or transparent documentation regarding the conditions of the gift has fuelled suspicion and weakened the NBA’s ethical standing.
He noted that the NBA has characterised the N300 million as a “gift” or “donation” rather than a hosting fee.
“Ethically, misrepresenting the nature of a gift or failing to clarify its terms violates best practices.
“The International Bar Association (IBA) strongly discourages acceptance of ambiguous donations, especially from governments, unless conditions are clearly defined and documented. Accepting and retaining such funds in the face of contested intent is not just a legal issue—it’s an ethical one,” he argued.
Shittu stressed the imperative of the NBA acting with transparency, integrity, and leadership.
To navigate the present situation responsibly and in line with global ethical standards, he advised the bar association to commission an independent audit to review the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the N300 million.
He advised that the audit should verify:
• The communication and documentation (if any) between the NBA and the Rivers State Government;
• The stated or implied conditions attached to the donation;
• How the funds have been used so far (if at all);
• Whether the use aligns with ethical and professional standards.
He believes that the audit will provide a factual basis for any decision the NBA make and demonstrate accountability to its members and the public.
‘Place controversial fund in escrow’
Shittu further advised that the controversial fund should be placed in escrow to avoid further erosion of trust or claims of financial impropriety, with a neutral financial institution such as the Central Bank of Nigeria.
He said this move would signal good faith and neutrality while allowing time for resolution without pressure.
The SAN suggested that the NBA should initiate a formal dialogue with the Rivers State Government rather than allow the matter to escalate into litigation.
“A roundtable discussion—potentially involving respected senior lawyers or Bar elders as mediators—can clarify intentions, resolve misunderstandings, and protect the reputation of both parties,” he advised.
Shittu urged the NBA to adopt a clear, public-facing Gift and Donation Policy, guided by international best practices.
Such a policy, he said, should: “Define what types of gifts or donations are acceptable; set procedures for reviewing and approving large or government-sourced donations; require full disclosure and documentation of terms and conditions; and mandate periodic reporting of all significant donations received.”
He said this will help prevent future controversies and uphold the NBA’s ethical standards.
“This is a defining moment for the NBA. The legal profession in Nigeria, and globally, rests on the pillars of independence, integrity, and public trust.
“The NBA’s response to this challenge will either reinforce or undermine those values.
“By choosing transparency, accountability, and dialogue, the NBA will not only resolve this p
articular issue but also set a new ethical standard for professional associations across Africa,” Shittu added.
