NHEF Scholars Program

CPD Points are mandatory: But the Courts say otherwise. What does that mean?

1.0 IntroductionFor many Nigerian lawyers today, CPD points have become almost synonymous with the right to practice. The assumption is simple: no CPD points, no seal and stamp, and ultimately, no access to the courtroom. But a recent decision of the Federal High Court has disrupted that assumption and raised a critical question—are CPD requirements truly mandatory under Nigerian law?Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is not a novel concept. Across jurisdictions like the United States and the United Kingdom, CPD exists as a tool to ensure that legal practitioners remain competent, relevant, and responsive to the evolving demands of the profession. In some cases, it is mandatory; in others, it is enforced through indirect regulatory measures. Nigeria, in adopting its own CPD framework, followed a familiar global pattern.However, the timing and intensity of its enforcement have made it particularly significant. We are in an era defined by Artificial Intelligence and rapid technological disruption. Legal practice is no longer confined to the courtroom; it is expanding into areas such as data protection, cybersecurity, intellectual property, blockchain, and climate-related advisory. Yet, many of these fields remain outside the traditional curriculum of Nigerian legal education, leaving a noticeable gap between qualification and modern practice.It was against this backdrop that the Nigerian Bar Association introduced the Mandatory Continuing Professional Development Rules in 2025, positioning CPD not just as a tool for growth, but as a condition for practice. In practical terms, participation in CPD programmes became directly tied to the ability of a lawyer to obtain a seal and stamp, effectively making it a gatekeeper to legal practice.What seemed like a progressive reform has now become the subject of legal controversy. The courts have stepped in, not to dismiss the importance of CPD, but to question the legality of making it compulsory in the manner adopted.This article explores that tension between professional development and legal authority and what it ultimately means for lawyers in Nigeria.2.0 Why CPD Was Made MandatoryThe push for mandatory CPD did not emerge in a vacuum. It was a response to a growing reality that the legal profession in Nigeria was becoming increasingly narrow in practice, despite the vast opportunities available beyond litigation.For decades, courtroom advocacy has dominated the perception of what it means to be a lawyer in Nigeria. Yet, the global legal market has evolved. New practice areas have emerged, driven by technology, finance, entertainment, and environmental concerns. These areas are not only intellectually engaging but also commercially rewarding. Still, many Nigerian lawyers remain concentrated in litigation, not necessarily by choice, but often due to limited exposure.CPD was designed to address this gap. It was intended to serve as a bridge between traditional legal training and the demands of modern legal practice. By requiring lawyers to continuously update their knowledge, the NBA sought to equip them with the skills needed to navigate emerging sectors and compete on a global scale.Beyond individual growth, there was also an institutional objective. The NBA aimed to standardize professional competence and ensure that lawyers remained current in a rapidly changing world. In theory, mandatory CPD would create a more dynamic, versatile, and competitive legal profession.However, while the objective was clear and largely commendable, the method of enforcement would soon become the focal point of controversy.3.0 The Legal Challenge: What Happened in Nwadiike v. NBAThe controversy came to a head in 2025 when the validity of mandatory CPD was challenged before the Federal High Court in Abuja.The claimant’s argument was straightforward but powerful. The Legal Practitioners Act remains the principal legislation governing legal practice in Nigeria, particularly on issues relating to the right of audience and the qualifications required to practice. According to the claimant, the Act had already set out these requirements exhaustively.On that basis, it was argued that the Nigerian Bar Association, through the Rules of Professional Conduct and its CPD Rules, lacked the authority to introduce additional conditions for legal practice. Making CPD a prerequisite for obtaining a seal and stamp, and by extension for appearing in court, was therefore said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.When the court delivered its judgment in January 2026, it agreed with this reasoning. It reaffirmed the supremacy of the Legal Practitioners Act as the governing law and held that its provisions on the right of audience are exhaustive. Any attempt to add to those conditions through subsidiary rules was declared invalid to that extent.In effect, the court set aside the enforcement of mandatory CPD where it operates as a condition for the right of audience. It also restrained the NBA from implementing policies that would deny lawyers access to the courtroom on the basis of non-compliance with CPD requirements.4.0 What This Means in Practical TermsThe immediate impact of the judgment is both significant and nuanced.CPD itself has not been abolished. Lawyers are still free to participate in CPD programmes, and the NBA retains the authority to organize and promote professional development initiatives. What has changed is the consequence of non-participation.A lawyer who does not meet CPD requirements can no longer be denied the right of audience in court on that basis alone. The direct link between CPD points and the ability to practice has been severed, at least in its current form.This distinction is crucial. It means that while CPD remains professionally desirable, it is no longer legally enforceable as a condition for appearing before a court. The assumption that CPD points are a gateway to practice has, for now, been corrected by the courts.5.0 The NBA at a CrossroadsThe decision places the Nigerian Bar Association in a delicate but important position. The intention behind CPD is not in dispute. If anything, the judgment acknowledges its relevance indirectly by focusing not on its purpose, but on its legal foundation.The real issue lies in the approach. By tying CPD compliance to the right of audience without express backing from primary legislation, the NBA stepped beyond the limits of its regulatory authority. The court’s intervention serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned reforms must be grounded in proper legal frameworks.This moment presents an opportunity rather than a setback. The NBA can rethink its strategy by shifting from compulsion to influence, encouraging participation through value rather than enforcement. More importantly, it can take steps to secure legislative backing by advocating for an amendment to the Legal Practitioners Act.Such an amendment would not only legitimize mandatory CPD but also strengthen the institutional framework of the profession, ensuring that future reforms are both effective and legally sound.6.0 ConclusionThe debate over CPD in Nigeria is not really about whether lawyers should continue learning. That question has already been answered by the realities of modern legal practice.The real issue is how that learning is enforced.The Federal High Court has made it clear that professional development, no matter how essential, cannot be imposed in a way that contradicts existing law. Good intentions, as the legal maxim reminds us, do not make an otherwise unlawful act lawful.What lies ahead is a necessary alignment between policy and legislation. If properly handled, this moment could mark the beginning of a more structured, forward-looking, and legally grounded approach to professional development within the Nigerian Bar.For now, one thing is certain—CPD remains important, but its place within the legal framework of practice in Nigeria is still being defined.Written by: Philip Kefas Terri EsqEdited by: Chimamanda Augustine Esq