By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D
The controversy surrounding the award given to Abdulrasheed Maina by the Garki Branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, Abuja, and his consequent appointment as its patron, has reopened a conversation that goes far beyond one individual or one branch.
It compels us to interrogate something more fundamental: what does honour mean in a society struggling to uphold integrity, and what happens when institutions that should define ethical boundaries begin to blur them?
An award is never a neutral gesture. It is a moral statement. It is a declaration of values. It tells society what is worthy of admiration and what conduct deserves public recognition. That is why professional bodies must be careful, not only about who they honour, but about the message such honour sends to the public.
It is important to clarify the structure of responsibility in this case. The award was conferred by the Garki Branch of the NBA, not by the national body. However, the NBA operates under a single moral identity. The actions of one branch inevitably affect the entire institution. In matters of integrity, decentralisation does not absolve collective responsibility.
To its credit, the NBA’s national leadership reacted swiftly and firmly. The President of the Bar, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, publicly condemned the award and the purported appointment, directed that the action be withdrawn, and initiated disciplinary processes against those responsible.
The national body also made it clear that while every citizen has a constitutional right to pursue legal remedies and appeals, the NBA will not lend its platform or credibility to any action that appears to sanitise controversy or undermine the fight against corruption. That response was necessary and commendable. It reaffirmed that the NBA still recognises ethical boundaries.
Yet even this intervention does not fully resolve the more profound concern. The crisis here is not only about a wrong decision taken by a branch, but about why such a decision was possible in the first place. How did a professional body whose core mission is justice, accountability, and the rule of law arrive at a point where a person with such a controversial public record could be considered worthy of honour?
This is where the NBA’s moral authority becomes vulnerable. Moral authority is not sustained by reaction alone. It is sustained by consistency. Institutions earn credibility not merely by correcting mistakes, but by preventing them through strong ethical culture, institutional memory, and uncompromising standards.
Honour, in its purest sense, is not about proximity to power or convenience. It is about conduct, character, and consistency. When recognition appears disconnected from these values, it weakens the moral language of the institution that confers it.
The NBA occupies a special place in Nigeria’s civic architecture. It is not merely a professional association. It is meant to be the conscience of the legal profession, a custodian of justice, ethics, accountability, and the rule of law.
When it speaks against corruption or abuse of power, its words carry weight because it is assumed to stand on higher moral ground. But moral authority is fragile. It is sustained not by rhetoric, but by coherence between words and actions.
This episode also exposes a wider national problem: the gradual normalisation of ethical compromise. We have become so accustomed to controversy that it no longer disqualifies. We celebrate achievement while ignoring character. We honour power while avoiding difficult moral questions. Over time, this blurs the distinction between excellence and expediency.
However, the national leadership’s condemnation exists within a broader context of unresolved credibility concerns that the NBA itself must confront. Only recently, the Association came under intense public scrutiny over its failure to refund the ₦300 million received from the Rivers State Government under Governor Siminalayi Fubara to support the hosting of the Bar Conference in Port Harcourt.
Following the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, the NBA decided to change the conference venue. In response, the Sole Administrator, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ette Ibas (rtd), formally requested a refund of the funds since the purpose for which they were released had changed. To date, that refund has not been issued.
This raises serious ethical questions. The money was given for a specific purpose and within a specific political context. Once that context changed, the morally responsible action should have been an immediate refund. Delay or silence weakens the NBA’s standing when it seeks to speak with authority on integrity and accountability. Moral authority cannot be selective. It must be consistent and transparent.
This is why the present controversy cannot be treated as an isolated misstep. It forms part of a broader pattern in which institutions struggle to maintain moral clarity amid political pressure, convenience, and compromise. When professional bodies mirror the ethical confusion of broader society, they lose their unique role as anchors of conscience.
The legal profession, more than most, must be sensitive to symbolism. Law is not merely about rules. It is about justice and moral persuasion. Courts derive legitimacy not only from legality but from public confidence. The NBA, as the umbrella body of lawyers, cannot afford to treat its honours as casual or ceremonial gestures.
There is also a generational concern. Young lawyers look to the NBA for guidance on what is admirable and what is rewarded. When controversial figures are celebrated without transparent ethical reasoning, it sends dangerous signals. It suggests that influence matters more than integrity and that reputation can be reshaped through proximity to power rather than principled conduct.
This is not an argument that people are incapable of redemption, nor a denial of anyone’s constitutional right to pursue justice through the courts. But honour is different from legal entitlement. Honour is about values and public symbolism. It must therefore be anchored in clarity and conviction.
Awards should not be instruments of appeasement or political balancing. They should not function as gestures of strategic convenience. They must remain expressions of moral commitment.
The NBA’s swift condemnation of the Garki Branch was necessary. But moral leadership demands more than reaction. It requires introspection, stronger ethical safeguards, and consistency in all aspects of institutional conduct, including financial transparency and political neutrality.
Nigeria is already battling a deep trust deficit. Citizens doubt elections, economic reforms, judicial outcomes, and governance structures. In such a climate, professional bodies like the NBA carry an even heavier burden. They are among the few institutions that can still speak with moral clarity. But that clarity must be protected deliberately.
The NBA must remember that its greatest strength has never been its influence or visibility. It has always been its integrity. Once that integrity becomes negotiable, moral authority dissolves quietly, even if institutional power remains.
This controversy should not merely be managed as an embarrassment. It should be seized as an opportunity for renewal. A chance to restate standards, clarify what honour truly means, and demonstrate that the Bar will not only speak against ethical compromise but also resist it internally.
Professional integrity is not tested in moments of comfort. It is tested in moments of inconvenience.
If the NBA desires to remain the conscience of the nation’s legal system, it must ensure that its honours, finances, alliances, and public conduct speak the same ethical language. Anything less risks turning moral authority into dramaturgy.
In a society where honour is becoming cheap and values are increasingly negotiable, the NBA must stand as a counterweight, not a reflection of the drift. It must show that integrity still defines excellence, that standards still matter, and that ethics still guide recognition.
Because when institutions that should guard conscience begin to compromise, society loses one of its last anchors of trust. And that loss is far more dangerous than any single controversial award.
Dr Lemmy Ughegbe, FIMC, CMC
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
