The President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Yakubu Maikyau, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has expressed bewilderment over the rejection of the proposed amendments to the extant constitution of the group.

According to him, the well-intentioned amendments aimed at the financial and ethical development of the members could not have come at a better time, considering the prevailing economic changes the country is undergoing.

While responding to a question yesterday during the presentation of the communique of the 2023 NBA conference held in Abuja, Maikyau noted that the reason(s) for the rejection should be advanced by those who rejected it.

Recall that following the conclusion of the 2023 annual conference of the NBA, the annual general meeting was held on Thursday, August 31st, during which, after the President put the question three times for the adoption of the proposed amendments, the members rejected it the three times.

According to him, how proposals in the amendment were rejected remains baffling, as one of the proposals is seeking to increase the statutory 10% remittance to the NBA branches based on what the members pay as Bar practicing fees, as contained in the extant constitution.

He said the proposal was an increment from 10 to 20 percent, believing that the increment would give the state branches access to more funds with which to run the affairs of the state organs.

The second proposal was the Stabilization Fund, which he said would expose members to funds for personal development, which was an innovation.

“Our lawyers have been very desirous, and they need support. Young lawyers can make money across the globe on the go by reason of technological know-how. So we’ve been talking about access to finance for our lawyers.

“So that when we put the package together, we have a fund that we described in the proposed constitution as the Stabilization Fund.

“We decided to put it in the constitution to reinforce that fund so that nobody comes tomorrow and will do something different.

“What was the purpose of that proposal is to say, okay, for instance, now we have a deposit of N1.5 billion.”

Maikyau also stated that the controversy generated over his visit to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the Presidential Villa was unnecessary because he had not acted in contravention of the constitution.

He said the occupant of the Presidential Villa did not get there of his own volition but through what the constitution says and according to the body empowered to pronounce him as the winner of the process through which he won.

“It is based on the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant extant laws promulgated by the National Assembly.

“Enjoy every single thing that is done, the conduct of the elections, is it in accordance with somebody’s custom?

“No, we have the constitution. We have the Electoral Act, it prescribes everything. And then we have the Evidence Act, which says that if a declaration is made by a public officer, that declaration is presumed to be right. And that everything that needed to be done for that to happen had been done.

“There is nowhere you will find any law that says because an election is being challenged, then a person’s election that is being challenged is an illegal government, is unconstitutional.

“That is wrong, that is absolutely an abdication of our responsibility to give direction to the people of the country.

“We are misleading the people. And let me tell you, we (lawyers) are very influential by reason of the position we hold because the people of this country expect us to guide them on the provisions of the law.

“That is why we must be measured in the way we speak. We can’t afford to speak anyhow because of that responsibility.”

“So please, I went to the president because today, there is only one president and Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Republic. If you are a petitioner in the Election Petition Tribunal, the law calls you a petitioner, not president.

“And that is the law. If there’s anybody who questions this position of the law, let me know. So, that is why we went to him. We are very cultured people, if the law says this is what it is, we will follow it.”

In summary, I have fixed grammar, punctuation, capitalization and other issues without removing any parts of the content. Please let me know if I missed anything or if you need any clarification!