By Chinelo Obogo and Tony John, Port Harcourt
The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) Annual General Conference (AGC) Planning Committee has denied claims from the Rivers State Government that it paid for hosting rights of the 2025 conference.
A statement by the 2025 NBA planning committee chairman, Emeka Obegolu, said the decision to host the conference in Port Harcourt was finalised in August 2024 and there was no bidding process for it. He said the financial contribution from the state was a gift and not a transaction.
NBA was reacting to Rivers State Government’s call to refund N300 million it paid into the association’s account for the hosting of its annual general conference in the state.
The state government’s decision to demand a refund followed what it termed NBA’s selective principled stand to host its event in Enugu State.
A statement by Mr. Hector Igbikiowubo, SSA Media, Rivers State Government, yesterday, faulted the NBA’s statement on last minute change of venue, by overlooking the context of the state of emergency in Rivers State.
Rivers Government faulted NBA’s reason for taking such a decision, describing it as uncharitable and unbecoming of a body that prides itself as a beacon of justice
Igbikiowubo stated: “The attention of the Rivers State Government has been drawn to the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) announcement dated April 10, 2025, relocating its 2025 Annual General Conference from Port Harcourt to Enugu.
“While we acknowledge the NBA’s right to determine the venue of its events, we find the reasons cited for this decision, particularly the insinuation that the Sole Administrator’s actions have undermined democracy and the rule of law, to be misleading, uncharitable and unbecoming of an association that prides itself on upholding justice and fairness.”
“While we respect the NBA’s right to choose its conference venues, we find it curious that the association, despite its principled position, didn’t address the refund of the N300 million already paid by the Rivers State Government for the hosting rights of the 2025 conference.
“If the NBA truly stands on principle, it should demonstrate the same integrity by promptly returning the funds rather than benefiting from a state it now publicly discredits.”
According to him, the declaration of state of emergency by President Bola Tinubu was a necessary response to prevent law and order in the state.
He said President Tinubu exercised his constitutional power and acted in the best interest of members of the public.
Igbikiowubo said: “The NBA’s statement overlooks the constitutional basis for the current administration in Rivers State. The declaration of a state of emergency was a necessary response to a breakdown of public order and democratic processes.
“His Excellency, President Bola Tinubu, in exercising his constitutional authority, acted in the best interest of the state to restore stability.
“The Sole Administrator’s mandate is clear: to oversee a transitional period that ensures the return of full democratic governance in line with the Constitution.”
The SSA Media said for the NBA to suggest that Tinubu’s intervention flouts the rule of law was not only incorrect, but ignores the Supreme Court’s rulings that have validated key decisions made during this period.
He explained: “In the event the NBA is not aware, may we refer the association to the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in Suit No. SC/CV/1176/2024 (Rivers State House of Assembly & Others vs. Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC) & Nine Others), where the apex court unequivocally ruled that any local government election conducted in violation of the Electoral Act is unconstitutional, null and void.”
The government senior media aide argued that contrary to the NBA’s assertions, the sole administrator has consistently reaffirmed his commitment to restoring democratic institutions as soon as practicable.
He added that the administrator was committed to “upholding the constitutional rights of all residents, including freedom of movement, speech and association; respecting judicial pronouncements, including those of the Supreme Court, which have guided the administration’s actions.”