NBA conference funding’ - Wike humiliate Afam Osigwe led NBA for taking house of assembly side

Former Governor Nyesom Wike has lashed out at Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) leader Afam Osigwe over what he calls the hypocrisy in NBA conference funding. Wike claims that the NBA, which once accepted state funding without question, has now sided with the Rivers State House of Assembly, leaving many to wonder if financial interests have overtaken professional ethics.

In a recent heated conversation, Wike was quoted as saying, “NBA wrote to me for funds to build their national secretariat, and I contributed without hesitation. Now, when state support is directed towards our judiciary, critics immediately label it as bribery. This double standard is unacceptable.” He continued, “The NBA under Osigwe has shown clear favoritism towards the Assembly, undermining the very principles they once championed.”

During the conversation, a senior legal analyst, Mr. Emeka, added, “It is disturbing to see a professional body that once prided itself on integrity now aligning itself with political power for conference funding. The inconsistency is glaring.” Another participant in the discussion, a political commentator, Ms. Adeola, remarked, “If NBA can justify state funding for one event but not another, it raises serious questions about their motivations and transparency.”

The controversy centers on funding for the NBA’s annual conference. Wike argued that under previous administrations, the NBA readily accepted support, but now with the current government’s backing of judiciary improvements, the association has taken a confrontational stance. “We are investing in the infrastructure of justice,” Wike stated. “If that means enhancing our courts and ensuring judges have proper facilities, then that is our duty. The criticism is nothing but a facade.”

Wike’s comments have ignited debate among legal circles and political observers alike, highlighting the tensions between traditional funding practices and modern political alliances.

In follow-up conversations, critics argued that such funding practices risk compromising the impartiality of legal institutions, while supporters defended the measures as necessary for maintaining order and providing essential services. The debate continues to divide opinions widely.