Effect Of Expired NBA Seals On Validity Of Legal Documents Prepared By Lawyers In Nigeria:
A Rejoinder to the Director of Legal Services, Obafemi Awolowo University By Sylvester Udemezue

INTRODUCTION
The recent letter, dated 4 October 2025, issued by the Director of Legal Services in the Legal Unit of the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), challenging the validity of a pre-action notice authored by Hon. Kene Nnadi on the ground that it bore a 2024 Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) stamp and seal instead of 2025, has sparked significant professional debate. Trending news reports on 07 October 2025 indicate that the University formally questioned Hon. Nnadi’s pre-action notice, effectively demanding that he “establish your 2025 practising status” by providing proof of his current right to practise, rather than relying on what OAU perceives as an outdated seal. The letter, signed by Yinka Ayantola, Esq., Director of Legal Services, and copied to key university officials, reads in part:
“Re: Pre-action Notice Pursuant to Section 49 of the Obafemi Awolowo University Act 2019. I refer to your letter to the Vice-Chancellor, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, (the University) referenced KFN/PH.CH/2025/ VOL.J/00063 and dated 11/09/2025 on the above-captioned subject. It is our observation that the seal you affixed to your letter under reference is your 2024 seal. As you are aware, you have a duty to pay your practising fee for 2025 to enable you to write as a lawyer. It is therefore our request that you establish your right to practise as a lawyer for the year 2025 as required by the relevant regulations or rules. I have the instructions of the University to request you to do the needful. Thank you. Signed, Yinka Ayantola, Esq., Director, Legal Services.”
OAU’s position is that the use of a 2024 seal implies that Hon. Nnadi has not renewed his practising status for 2025, casting doubt on his legal capacity to issue the notice. The University frames the matter as one of professional legitimacy and procedural propriety, asserting that any lawyer engaging in legal processes must demonstrate a valid, current practising licence rather than rely on a prior seal. With due respect, the current author submits that this stance reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal purpose, scope, and effect of the NBA stamp and seal, as well as a failure to distinguish between the distinct functions of the NBA seal and the Annual Bar Practising Fee (BPF). This essay seeks to restate, with precision and supporting authority, the proper legal and professional position on the matter.
POSITION OF THE COURTS
Nigerian appellate courts have conclusively addressed the question of whether an expired NBA stamp or seal invalidates a legal process. Two decisions are directly on point: CBN v. Ekpo & Anor (2021) LCN/15155 (CA) and Emechebe v. Ceto Int’l (Nig.) Ltd. [2018] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1631) 520 at 534, paras. B–C (per Abubakar, JCA). In Emechebe, the Respondent’s originating process bore an expired NBA stamp. The Court of Appeal declined to strike it out, holding that such insistence would amount to pushing technicalities too far. The Court held that the purpose of the NBA stamp and seal is not to determine the validity of legal documents but to protect the integrity of the legal profession by preventing quacks, impostors, and meddlesome interlopers from masquerading as lawyers and deceiving unsuspecting litigants. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed this position in CBN v. Ekpo, emphasizing that the use of an expired seal does not invalidate a legal process. Until and unless a later decision of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court overturns these decisions, Emechebe and Ekpo remain binding precedents.
THE PURPOSE AND LEGAL EFFECT OF THE NBA SEAL
The NBA seal is a professional identifier: a mark of authenticity that verifies that the person affixing it is duly called to the Nigerian Bar and enrolled to practise as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Its core objective is to prevent unauthorised persons from presenting themselves as lawyers. Once a genuine NBA seal is affixed to a document, it conclusively confirms that its author is a legal practitioner. If, as in Hon. Nnadi’s case, there is no allegation of forgery or counterfeit, then the seal has effectively performed its purpose. The year inscribed on the seal is secondary to its authenticating function. Yhus, whether the seal bears “2024” or “2025” does not affect its validity or the legal effect of the document to which it is affixed.
DOES THIS PRINCIPLE APPLY ONLY TO COURT PROCESSES?
Some lawyers have observed that the judicial authorities cited relate to court processes, whereas Hon. Nnadi’s document is a pre-action notice: letter, not a pleading. With due respect, that distinction is legally immaterial. The courts’ reasoning in Emechebe and Ekpo is not limited to the type of document but extends to the purpose of the seal itself: to authenticate the professional identity of the author. The seal’s function is the same whether it appears on a writ of summons, affidavit, contract, or letter: it signifies that the document emanated from a lawyer duly called to the Bar. If an expired seal does not invalidate a court process (a document that directly invokes judicial jurisdiction) it cannot logically invalidate a pre-action notice or any other letter.
RULE 10 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (RPC) 2023: SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION
Rule 10 of the RPC 2023 provides that “A lawyer, acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer or adviser of any government department or Ministry or any corporation, shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.” Subrule (2) defines legal documents broadly to include pleadings, affidavits, agreements, deeds, legal opinions, letters, memoranda, and reports. Subrule (3) further states that any such document signed or filed without a seal “shall be deemed not to have been properly signed or filed.” Importantly, the rule does not require that the seal must correspond to the current practising year. Judicial interpretation (especially in Emechebe and Ekpo) makes it clear that an expired seal satisfies the purpose of Rule 10: authentication of the author’s status.To interpret Rule 10 otherwise, would contradict these appellate authorities and exalt administrative formalism over substantive justice.
DISTINGUISHING THE NBA SEAL FROM THE ANNUAL BAR PRACTISING FEE (BPF)
A clear distinction must be drawn between the NBA Seal and the Bar Practising Fee (BPF), as the two serve entirely different purposes under the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) and the RPC.
(a) The Bar Practising Fee (BPF): Licence to Practise: Payment of the BPF authorises a lawyer who has already been called to the Bar to engage in active legal practice for a specific year. It functions as a licence renewal, conferring the right to practise law for that year. Failure to pay the BPF does not erase one’s qualification as a lawyer; it only means the person may not lawfully practise during that year until payment is made.
(b) The NBA Seal: Proof of Qualification: The NBA seal, by contrast, authenticates qualification, not annual licensing. It confirms that the bearer is a lawyer duly called to the Bar and enrolled under Sections 2, 22, and 24 of the LPA. The seal serves as protection against quackery, not as proof of current practising licence. Thus, even if the seal bears a previous year’s date, it continues to fulfil its core evidentiary function: identifying the author as a bona fide legal practitioner. It’s my y respectful submission that an expired seal does not (and cannot) render a legal document void.
VERIFICATION: STATUS VS. CURRENT PRACTISING RIGHT
If a third party seeks to verify whether the author of a legal document is a lawyer, the NBA seal suffices as conclusive evidence that the person is a lawyer. If, however, the concern is whether the lawyer holds a current practising licence, the correct reference is not the seal but the BPF receipt or the Bar Practising Certificate for that year. The NBA’s internal policy that one must first pay the BPF before obtaining the seal is, I submit, an administrative convenience (a revenue and compliance mechanism) not a statutory requirement. Accordingly, a lawyer’s qualification and authenticity cannot be impugned merely because the seal used bears a previous year’s mark.
EVIDENTIAL VS. SUBSTANTIVE DEFECTS
Failure to affix an NBA seal may raise an evidential question, that is, whether the document indeed emanated from a lawyer. But once a genuine seal (even if expired) is affixed, that evidential gap is cured. It is not a substantive defect that nullifies the document. The Court of Appeal’s position makes this clear: the seal’s function is evidentiary, not jurisdictional. It confirms identity and authorship, not the subsistence of a practising licence.
ON PROFESSIONALISM AND COLLEGIAL COURTESY
Professional courtesy and mutual respect are hallmarks of the legal profession. Publicly questioning a colleague’s professional status or the validity of his work product over an expired seal (especially without alleging forgery or misrepresentation) is inconsistent with both the spirit of collegiality and the dictates of fairness. As a lawyer has noted, one may, as a matter of prudence, reissue a fresh letter bearing a current seal to avoid unnecessary debate. However, the absence of a current seal does not, in law, invalidate the earlier document. In this context, the action of the OAU Director of Legal Services (querying Hon. Nnadi’s letter on such a tenuous basis) appears legally misconceived, professionally avoidable, and administratively unnecessary. A simple, courteous request for confirmation of current practising status (via BPF receipt or practising certificate) would have sufficed.
QUALIFICATION VS. LICENCE: THE LEGAL FOUNDATION
A look at the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA), particularly Sections 2, 22, and 24, reveals the distinction between being qualified to practise and being licensed to practise in a given year. Qualification arises once a person is called to the Bar and enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court. Licence to practise arises upon payment of the Annual Bar Practising Fee (BPF) for the relevant year. The NBA seal confirms the former; the BPF receipt confirms the latter. They are not interchangeable and serve distinct legal purposes.
CONCLUSION
The law and logic are both clear: (a). The NBA seal authenticates identity and qualification as a lawyer; the BPF confers the right to practise for the year; (b). The use of an expired NBA seal does not invalidate any legal document, as firmly established by the Court of Appeal in Emechebe v. Ceto Int’l and CBN v. Ekpo; (c). Rule 10 of the RPC 2023 does not require that the seal must correspond to the current practising year; (d). The OAU Director’s objection to Hon. Nnadi’s pre-action notice on the basis of a 2024 seal is, with respect, misconceived, unfounded, and professionally uncharitable. If OAU wished to verify Hon. Nnadi’s current practising status, the appropriate approach was simply to request his 2025 BPF receipt or Practising Certificate, not to impugn his status or the validity of his pre-action notice. The better view (legally, ethically, and practically) is that an expired NBA seal does not invalidate a document, whether a court process, a legal opinion, or a pre-action notice.
Respectfully submitted,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems),
Law Teacher, Legal Practitioner, and Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law, and Justice (TRM).
08021365545.
udems@therealityministry.ngo.
www.therealityministry.ngo.
(07 October 2025)
To join THE METRO LAWYER social media platforms, please click on the following:
WhatsApp Channel:Join whatsapp
TELEGRAM: Join Telegram
FACEBOOK Join Facebook
TWITTER Join Twitter
INSTAGRAM: Join Instagram
For sponsored posts, adverts and articles, please send emails to info@themetrolawyer.com.ng or metrolawyerng@gmail.com or call 08034518185/08033240447.
DISCLAIMER:
The views/opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not purport to represent the views/opinions of The Metro Lawyer (TML), its affiliates or any of its staff.