The Nigerian Bar Association has described as false claims that the sum of $2,000 was shared among some Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) as an “attendance fee” during its engagement in Maiduguri, Borno State.
The NBA stated that it authorised no such payment, adding that the claim was baseless and unsupported by any evidence. It warned that the allegation aims to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Bar’s leadership.
Sources at the NBA national secretariat said no funds intended for the association were distributed to any category of members, whether SANs, branch officers, statutory members of the National Executive Committee (NEC), or young lawyers, during the Maiduguri engagement.
“The association neither received nor authorised the distribution of any such sum,” one source said, further clarifying that there is no documentary proof that the Borno State government paid $2,000 to any group on behalf of the NBA.
“There is no payment voucher, no government schedule of disbursement, no official list of beneficiaries issued by any state authority, and no identifiable budgetary head under which such a payment could have been processed,” the source added.
The NBA national secretariat also emphasised that no association funds were diverted, misapplied, or shared in Maiduguri. “A review of the Association’s accounts shows no transaction reflecting the alleged payment. No money accruable to the NBA was taken by any member of the Inner Bar or by any officer of the Association. The financial records are clear,” the source said.
Addressing speculation around the NEC meeting held in Maiduguri, the source clarified that although the state governor attended the cocktail reception, he neither addressed the gathering nor made any representation. “He was on leave at the time. There was no announcement, presentation or declaration of any financial gift to members of the Bar,” the source stated.
The secretariat emphasised that serious allegations require serious proof, pointing out that claims of public fund disbursement could be verified through lawful mechanisms such as formal inquiries or requests under the Freedom of Information Act. “None has been produced. What has circulated instead are insinuations elevated to ‘facts’ without evidentiary backing. The integrity of the Bar cannot be impeached on the strength of conjecture. Allegations must rest on evidence, not assumption, not repetition, and certainly not political convenience,” the source warned.
