The Advocacy for Bar Licence Freedom (ABLIF) has cautioned the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the NBA Institute of Continuing Legal Education (NBA-ICLE) against enforcing the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) compliance regime, citing ongoing proceedings before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a press release dated 11 January 2026, ABLIF noted that the CPD framework is the subject of a pending suit before Court 3 of the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Honourable Justice B. F. M. Nyako. The case — Christabel Zoe Ayuk & 11 Ors. v. Incorporated Trustees of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) & 4 Ors., Suit No.: FHC/ABJ/CS/2241/2025 — is scheduled for hearing on 20 January 2026.
According to ABLIF, the court has issued a subsisting bench order directing all parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the suit. The group emphasized that the NBA, represented by legal counsel in the matter, is fully aware of both the pendency of the case and the binding nature of the court’s order.
ABLIF highlighted that the CPD compliance notice circulated by NBA-ICLE, which reportedly set 31 March 2026 as the deadline for compliance, concerns issues that are currently sub judice. The group maintained that any enforcement, compulsion, or sanction related to CPD compliance should be suspended until the court delivers its judgment.
Drawing a parallel with a previous stance taken by the NBA, ABLIF recalled that the Association had advised the Nigeria Police Force to await judicial determination on the issue of tinted glass permits. The group urged the NBA to exhibit the same institutional respect for judicial authority in the CPD matter.
ABLIF also called on legal practitioners and the public to take note that the CPD regime and its enforcement are currently before a court of competent jurisdiction, stressing that all stakeholders should await the outcome of the proceedings. The group reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism, and the protection of the professional freedoms of legal practitioners.