By Nnamdi Chukwudebelu
In the last few weeks we have seen clamours for alternative lawyers’ association and we have seen other lawyers term it as an attempt to divide the Bar. But is that what it really is? Does having an alternative body of lawyers really divide the Bar or strengthen it?
There is really not supposed to be any fear if some lawyers want to form another national lawyers association. It is a constitutional right. This point is where everyone agree. What we should be looking at is the advantages of such an association.
We should endeavor not to allow the fear of the unknown bring us to a point where we do not allow contrary opinions to have their say. The New NBA’s formation will create healthy competition for the NBA. It does not really divide the Bar as the Bar is not the association (NBA) but the lawyers themselves. We can always agree on national issues and on issues regarding the general well being of lawyers as a whole. It would not stop us from “speaking with one voice”.
Having an alternative association will give option for lawyers. One can then say, “I prefer the NBA” or “I prefer the NNBA”. Both associations are not enemies but sister organisations. The worst case scenario would be that discrepant voices suppressed by one association may be given freedom by the other association.
But then, is that not what we all stand for? Freedom of speech!
The obvious problem with the “speak with one voice” is the frequent presence within the organization of more than one opinion. In such cases, speaking with one voice necessarily means suppressing discrepant voices. Often, in fact, it is my humble submission and I advocate that speaking with one voice is a way of urging everyone else to pipe down.
But we all know that is not what we really want. We want a lawyers body that is strong, progressive, forthright, defends the bench and fearless. We want a Bar Association that will stand its ground in the midst of adversity, persecution and difficulty and not one that members voices would be suppressed.
I have been called names, threatened that I will never become a SAN and ganged up against all because I advocate for a shift from the status quo. Is that supposed to scare me or deepen my convictions? That is the kind of leadership that we have. Is that the leadership that will take us to the promised land? I think not.
A lawyers association should and must not be one that suppresses dissent. This is a major difference between the NBA and the NEW NBA. Suppressing dissent is a price too high to pay for message consistency or “a united Bar”. We must practice what we preach and it has to start in house. The NBA has obviously failed in that regard both at the national level and at the branch levels.
I dare say that there must be option and we must not be stuck at a place.
I will continue another day.
Nnamdi Chukwudebelu
