The African Bar Association (AfBA) has issued a formal rebuke of Amnesty International, describing the human rights organisation’s characterisation of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation’s intervention in the ongoing Nigerian Bar Association electoral dispute as “unwarranted and misplaced” — and calling on Amnesty International to exercise institutional restraint and remain within the bounds of its globally acknowledged human rights mandate.
The statement, signed by Nicholas Sumba, Director of Publicity and Protocol of the African Bar Association, and dated 11 July 2026 from Nairobi, Kenya, was issued in direct response to a statement Amnesty International had released concerning the involvement of Prince Lateef Fagbemi SAN, the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, in the dispute surrounding the 2026 NBA National Elections.
The African Bar Association opened its statement by expressing what it described as profound disappointment at Amnesty International’s position, arguing that the AGF’s intervention had been fundamentally mischaracterised.
According to AfBA, the Attorney-General’s intervention, as publicly communicated, amounted to suggestions intended to facilitate an amicable, lawful, and institutional resolution of a dispute affecting Nigeria’s foremost professional legal association. The association argued that such efforts neither constituted coercion nor represented any usurpation of the NBA’s autonomy, but instead reflected the legitimate interest of the Chief Law Officer of the Federation in promoting respect for the rule of law and institutional stability.
“Against this background, AfBA finds Amnesty International’s characterization of the Attorney General’s intervention as ‘interference’ to be both unwarranted and misplaced,” the statement read.
The sharpest passage of the AFBA statement addressed what the association described as a question of institutional competence and mandate boundaries.
AfBA acknowledged Amnesty International’s globally recognised record in the promotion and protection of internationally recognised human rights through research, documentation, advocacy, and campaigns. However, it drew a clear distinction between that mandate and the subject matter of the NBA electoral dispute.
The association argued that internal electoral disagreements within a professional association, and policy suggestions offered by a public official towards their peaceful resolution, do not ordinarily engage the human rights mandate for which Amnesty International is internationally respected — unless there are demonstrable allegations of violations of fundamental rights protected under domestic or international law.
“By entering a debate that principally concerns institutional governance and professional self-regulation, Amnesty International risks extending its public advocacy beyond the sphere of its recognised competence,” AfBA stated. “Such interventions may inadvertently politicise issues that are better addressed through established legal and institutional processes and may undermine the organisation’s perceived impartiality on matters that genuinely implicate human rights.”
The AfBA statement amounted to a pointed warning that Amnesty International’s credibility on issues that genuinely concern human rights — which it described as considerable and important — could be diluted by involvement in disputes that are properly characterised as matters of professional self-governance rather than rights violations.
Beyond its critique of Amnesty International, AfBA used the statement to urge all stakeholders in the NBA electoral dispute to adopt a posture of restraint and to channel any remaining disagreements through constitutional and institutional mechanisms.
The association called on stakeholders to approach the NBA electoral process with fidelity to the Association’s Constitution, deference to Bar leaders and elders, respect for institutional mechanisms for dispute resolution, and adherence to due process.
It reiterated AfBA’s own commitment to the independence of the legal profession and the rule of law, while affirming that interventions in matters of professional governance — by any party — should be guided by competence, legal principle, and respect for institutional boundaries.
“AfBA respectfully calls upon Amnesty International to exercise institutional restraint and to remain focused on its globally acknowledged mandate of protecting and promoting human rights,” the statement concluded. “Preserving the clarity of that mandate strengthens the credibility and effectiveness of the organisation in addressing the grave human rights challenges confronting Nigeria, Africa, and the wider international community.”
