Ismail Salif, Esq., has questioned the credibility of the recently concluded Nigerian Bar Association national election after he and several other eligible lawyers were allegedly unable to access the voting platform despite repeated attempts throughout election day.
In a statement titled, “NBA Election: Why Was I Disenfranchised?”, Salif said he was saddened by comments dismissing complaints about the exercise on the ground that election losers would always protest against the outcome.
He argued that such a position missed the essence of democracy because the legitimacy of an election did not depend solely on the candidate declared victorious but also on the credibility of the process that produced the winner.
According to him, every electoral contest must produce a winner and a loser, but the process must remain transparent, accountable and capable of inspiring confidence among both the candidates and the electorate.
“Elections are not merely about the outcome; they are about the integrity of the process that leads to that outcome,” he said.
Salif maintained that candidates and voters should be able to confidently state that an election was free, fair and credible, describing such confidence as the foundation upon which every democratic institution rests.
He acknowledged that no election could be entirely perfect but argued that irregularities should not be so significant that they cast doubt on the process or prevent a substantial number of eligible voters from participating.
Salif said the NBA election was intended to provide members with an opportunity to choose those who would lead and represent them at the national level, questioning what the process represented when eligible members, particularly young lawyers, were allegedly denied the opportunity to vote.
Recounting his experience on election day, he said he attempted to access the voting portal using different mobile phones, a laptop and separate internet networks but repeatedly received an “Invalid SCN” message.
He said he also tried using his examination number after learning that it could serve as an alternative authentication detail, but the platform returned repeated error messages, including “Unauthorised authentication” and “Unable to get authorisation.”
Salif said he continued trying to access the portal from about 9 a.m. until approximately 11:45 p.m., stressing that his objective was simply to exercise his right to vote as a member of the Bar.
“Whether my preferred candidate won or lost was secondary. Voting itself was my right, and I was denied that right,” he said.
He questioned why the Electoral Committee of the NBA did not clearly inform eligible voters before the election that examination numbers could allegedly be used as an alternative means of authentication.
According to him, the several emails sent by the committee before the election outlined the voting procedures but did not mention the use of examination numbers.
Salif asked what changed during the election and why such important information was not immediately communicated to every eligible voter when it became apparent that some members were experiencing authentication problems.
He said he had also received no post-election communication clarifying whether examination numbers were officially approved as an alternative means of accessing the platform.
The lawyer further questioned whether the committee was aware that many voters were experiencing similar difficulties and that some members were eventually able to vote using their examination numbers while others remained locked out.
He asked why the information was not promptly circulated if the committee knew of the development and, alternatively, why there was no effective monitoring and response mechanism if it was unaware of the problem.
“These questions deserve clear and satisfactory answers,” he said, adding that he remained willing to be convinced that the problems did not undermine the process.
Salif said he repeatedly called the election support telephone lines but received no response.
He also sent an email detailing his complaint to the election support team but had not received any reply as of the time he issued the statement.
He explained that the election was the first NBA national poll in which he was eligible to participate and that he had been genuinely excited about contributing to the process of choosing those who would represent him and thousands of other lawyers.
Instead, he said, the experience left him frustrated, excluded and questioning the process he had looked forward to participating in.
Salif asked how affected members were expected to retain confidence in the electoral process and the association when they could not exercise one of their most basic membership rights.
He also questioned how he could assure himself that the NBA conducted elections rather than selections or trust an institution that could not guarantee his opportunity to vote.
The lawyer stressed that his intervention was not an accusation against the electoral committee or any candidate but a series of genuine questions requiring genuine answers.
He said the controversy should not be reduced to which candidate won or lost because the central issue was that many members who fulfilled the requirements for participation were allegedly prevented from voting.
“This is not about any candidate. It is not about who won or who lost. It is about me and many other eligible voters who fulfilled every requirement to vote but were nevertheless denied the opportunity to do so,” he said.
“Our right to participate in the electoral process was taken away from us. I was eligible. I was ready. I was willing. Yet, I was disenfranchised.”
Salif said the question that continued to trouble him remained: “Why was I disenfranchised?”
The post “Losers Must Complain’ Mindset Misses The Essence Of Democracy” — Lawyer Questions Credibility Of 2026 NBA Election appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.