NBA’s Ethical Crisis: The N300 Million Rivers State Controversy.
2 min read
-By Eculaw Media
The Nigerian Bar Association faces a serious ethical dilemma in its refusal to return the N300 million received from Rivers State Government. This money belongs to Rivers State—not to Governor Fubara personally, nor to the appointed Sole Administrator. Regardless of leadership disputes, these funds remain state property and must be returned to the state treasury.
By entangling itself in arguments over legitimate governance in Rivers State, the NBA dangerously ventures into partisan politics. While Eculaw Media has consistently opposed both the state of emergency declaration and the elected governor’s suspension, this stance doesn’t justify the NBA withholding state funds under the pretense of safeguarding them until constitutional order returns. Such reasoning is both absurd and legally indefensible.
The NBA’s position represents a profound ethical breach. With Enugu State likely providing financial support for hosting the relocated conference, the NBA effectively collects duplicate payments from two states for a single event. Rivers State’s N300 million payment was explicitly tied to hosting the conference in Port Harcourt—there was no alternative justification for this transfer, which explains why neighboring states like Bayelsa or Delta made no similar contributions.
Importantly, the NBA—not Rivers State—unilaterally withdrew from the Port Harcourt venue as a political protest against the emergency declaration. No security or logistical concerns prevented the conference from proceeding as planned.
The NBA courts significant danger by entering partisan political disputes. As a professional body, it must maintain neutrality while allowing individual members their political freedoms. Political entanglements inevitably polarize the organization and diminish its professional authority.
This controversy reveals a long-standing pattern of the NBA’s institutional derailment. For years, the association has primarily served its leadership’s interests, functioning as a political springboard for ambitious lawyers. Even ostensibly apolitical leaders like Akpata have used their NBA positions as stepping stones toward political office. The current Rivers State controversy may well represent someone’s calculated political maneuvering.
If the money belongs to Rivers State, the identity of the current officeholder remains irrelevant. When funds were provided specifically for a Port Harcourt conference that will no longer occur, basic ethics demand their return. Accepting payment from Enugu while retaining Rivers’ funds constitutes an indefensible double dipping. Whoever currently manages Rivers State’s finances and pays its civil servants is legally empowered to receive funds rightfully belonging to the state.
By continuing this course, the NBA risks reducing itself to the level of partisan protest groups rather than maintaining its position as Nigeria’s preeminent legal professional organization.
