Testing the bye-law

On the 1st day of March, 2013, when the Nigerian Bar Association, Kaduna branch, held its 17th monthly general meeting, the then chairman of the branch, Samuel Atung Esq, informed members that the Amended Bye-Laws of the branch, having been approved by the National Executive Committee of the NBA on the 21st day of February, […]

On the 1st day of March, 2013, when the Nigerian Bar Association, Kaduna branch, held its 17th monthly general meeting, the then chairman of the branch, Samuel Atung Esq, informed members that the Amended Bye-Laws of the branch, having been approved by the National Executive Committee of the NBA on the 21st day of February, 2013 has now come into effect, this was unanimously agreed upon by the 201 members of the branch in attendance, and so it was, that the BYE LAWS AND STANDING ORDERS of NBA Kaduna branch was launched and given legal recognition.
Before the election, only 49 members of the branch out of over 300 members were listed by the electoral committee as the only eligible members to vote during the election, by the provisions of the Bye-Law i.e Article XVI {4}(c), only branch members who have paid the annual due for the (2) consecutive years preceding the election, including the election year and who have attended not less than (3) monthly general meetings of the election year shall be qualified to vote during election. A group who called themselves ‘concerned members of the BAR’ dissatisfied by the fact that larger members of the branch would not be qualified to vote, wrote a petition against being disenfranchised from voting. The General Meeting as the supreme authority, irrespective of interest chose to adhere strictly with the Bye-laws, the petition was defeated and  49 members were the only ones qualified to vote.
On the 29th day of July 2013, at the Annual General Meeting held at Command Guest Inn, Kanta Road, Kaduna, elections were conducted and certain members emerged as officers of the branch to pilot the affairs of the branch for the next two(2) years. At the 1st Ordinary General Meeting of the new branch officers held on 2nd August 2013, senior members of the branch like Charles Mafua Esq, Festus Okoye Esq, M.I Abubakar Esq, S.B Mohammed Esq, and the likes, congratulated the chairman and branch officers for emerging victorious at the election and advised the chairman to adhere strictly to the branch’s Bye-laws.
On the 4th of October 2013, just a little over two months in office, at the Ordinary General Meeting held every first Friday of the month as provided for in the Branch’s Bye-laws, after the chairman declared the meeting open, a point of order was raised, then a motion for impeachment was moved which was seconded, but the chairman overruled the motion on the ground that motion for impeachment is not a point of order.
By virtue of Article VIII {1} of the Bye-Laws, a branch officer or any member of the Executive Committee may be removed from office for gross misconduct, or by a vote of not less than 2/3 majority of at least 100 financially up-to-date members present at a meeting summoned in accordance with the Bye-Laws (provided that the provisions of Article XII (3) is complied with). Article XII(3) provides for a disciplinary committee which would be in charge of complaints of professional misconduct against members of the branch.
The Bye-Law goes ahead to define misconduct to include; any act or behaviour that brings or is likely to bring the profession or the branch into disrepute or reproach, disobedience of resolutions of the branch, improper dressing for court appearance and/or BAR functions, Discourteous acts or behaviour to professional colleagues.
An elder once said to me “anything worth doing is worth doing well.” The incumbent chairman came into power by strict adherence to the Bye-laws, it is only fair and just that he be removed by the provisions of the Bye-law as anything to the contrary would amount to a democratic coup d’ etat. If the present chairman has done any act warranting removal from office, then the Bye-laws should be put to the test again, provisions providing for removal of branch officers from office should be invoked, members of the branch should be given the opportunity to decide whether the chairman needs to be removed or not. Let the right things be done in the interest and unity of the branch.
Daniel Bulusson writes from Kaduna