By: Usman Bashir Abubakar

In a legislative move, President Bola Tinubu has transmitted the Legal Practitioners Bill 2025 to the Nigerian Senate, initiating what could be the most significant overhaul of the legal profession’s regulatory framework since independence. The executive bill, read on the Senate floor on November 26, 2025, by Senate President Godswill Akpabio, seeks to repeal the Legal Practitioners Act, Cap L11, Laws of the Federation 2004, which was originally enacted in 1962. While the presidency frames the legislation as a necessary evolution to restore public confidence and uphold professional standards, legal experts and critical stakeholders warn that the bill may inadvertently facilitate institutional capture and deepen fissures within the bar. In his transmittal letter, President Tinubu argued that the existing 1962 framework is obsolete and ill-equipped to handle the complexities of modern legal practice, cross-border services, and digital realities. The proposed legislation aims to promote the rule of law, protect the public interest, and align the Nigerian legal profession with international best practices.

Key statutory provisions of the proposed bill include a strengthened Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) established under Section 17, with jurisdiction over misconduct cases, while Section 18 outlines a graduated matrix of sanctions ranging from reprimands and restrictions to suspension and removal from the roll. A significant structural change is the introduction of a mandatory two-year “Post-Professional Legal Internship” (PPLI) for new entrants, a tutelage prerequisite for independent practice found in Section 25. Additionally, Sections 26 and 28 mandate that practitioners must obtain a practising license, subject to annual renewal contingent upon payment of fees, evidence of good character, and the accumulation of Mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) credits. The bill also requires the inspection and accreditation of law offices to combat quackery and mandates the use of official seals and stamps to authenticate legal documents.

The introduction of the two-year mandatory internship has drawn mixed reactions from the legal community. Proponents, such as Rilwan Idris, Managing Partner of Transadvisory Legal, argue that the initiative will bridge the gap between theory and practice, enhancing the quality of the legal market. However, significant concerns regarding the economic welfare of young lawyers have emerged, with analysts warning that without statutory minimum wage protections, the PPLI could institutionalize cheap labor and act as a socioeconomic filter, excluding talented individuals who cannot afford two years of potentially uncompensated service. Practitioners like Joel Ighalo have cautioned that while feasible if compensation is adequate, the internship must not become a vehicle for exploitation. The most immediate consequence will be felt by thousands of students currently in the Nigerian Law School, for whom this represents a fundamental change in career expectations.

The most contentious aspect of the Bill is the proposed restructuring of regulatory authority, specifically regarding the Body of Benchers (BoB) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Legal scholar Chidi Anselm Odinkalu argues that the Bill elevates the Body of Benchers to a “supreme regulator,” effectively subordinating the NBA and creating a structure where the BoB acts as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the government. The BoB’s proposed composition is heavily weighted toward the Bench and executive appointees, including the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, and Supreme Court Justices, with only 61 representatives from the NBA. Critics fear this structure transforms the regulatory landscape into a shrine to institutional capture, where the BoB subsumes the disciplinary apparatus, potentially placing its own members above discipline.

The legislation also contains provisions that some stakeholders view as a targeted attack on the NBA’s democratic choices, specifically regarding the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC), which confers the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Historically, the NBA President sat on the LPPC, but the new Bill proposes excluding the NBA President from this committee unless they hold the rank of SAN. This provision has been termed the “Olumide Akpata Reprisal,” referencing the election of Akpata, a non-SAN, as NBA President in 2020, and is seen as an attempt to reinforce elitist hierarchies within the profession. Furthermore, the Bill mandates that the LPPC can only make or review rules for the SAN rank with the approval of the Body of Benchers.

Contradicting fears of a regulatory takeover, the Nigerian Bar Association has pushed back against claims that the Bill strips it of its powers. Sabastine Anya, the NBA 1st Vice President, stated that a proper understanding of Section 28 shows the NBA’s authority remains intact and strengthened. According to Anya, the power to issue and renew practising licenses is expressly vested in the NBA, not the Body of Benchers. He clarified that regulatory control flows from regulations made by the NBA, covering compliance monitoring, character assessment, and fee administration, insisting the Bill codifies the Association’s central role rather than eroding it.

The Bill also attempts to assert extra-territorial jurisdiction by reserving legal services related to Nigerian law or transactions with a substantial nexus to Nigeria exclusively for Nigerian lawyers. Critics note that the Bill’s definition of a “foreign lawyer” includes any person entitled to practice in a foreign jurisdiction, technically classifying Nigerian citizens qualified in jurisdictions like New York as foreign lawyers. This approach has been described as tone-deaf and likely to complicate Nigeria’s integration into the global legal market.

The economic context for legal practitioners is further complicated by the concurrent Nigeria Tax Act 2025, which imposes a unified 4% Development Levy on assessable profits of companies, excluding small companies. However, professional services are explicitly excluded from the zero percent tax rate applicable to small companies, meaning even small law firms will face the 30% corporate income tax rate and the new levy, alongside increased costs for accreditation and stamps. Additionally, the Tax Act introduces “force of attraction” rules that could tax the global income of law firms with foreign subsidiaries if they are centrally managed from Nigeria.

As the Senate refers the Bill to its Committee on Rules and Business for further scrutiny, with a mandate to report back within four weeks, the tension between the imperative to modernize a 62-year-old law and the risk of creating a regulatory system susceptible to institutional capture remains central. While the Bill promises to restore integrity and ethical conduct as the backbone of the profession, its structural choices regarding the Body of Benchers and the imposition of mandatory pupillage without economic safeguards suggest a complex battle ahead for the soul of the Nigerian Bar.