The Two-Year Pupillage for Law Graduates in Nigeria: A Path to Professional Mastery or a Barrier to Access.

 

  The Two-Year Pupillage for Law Graduates in Nigeria: A Path to Professional Mastery or a Barrier to Access. 

Author: YOHANA MARY, Winner of the Maiden SI OLAWUNI ESSAY COMPETITION 2026. 

School: Federal University Wukari 

Level: 200Level

Phone: 08144488066

Gmail Address: maryyohanna931@gmail.com

Studying Law is a Lilliputian task. Law students almost do not have a life outside their books, all because of the tight demands of the course. Little wonder, they always cannot wait to finish the 5-year undergraduate programme (LLB), dash to the Nigerian Law School, and go off afterwards to face real-life situations proper. This is why the 2- Year Pupillage Bill, which mandates every fresh graduate of the Nigerian Law School to a 2-year compulsory pupillage, has been greeted with mixed reactions, with a staggering majority staunchly against it. However, emotions are not the gauge. This paper, therefore, seeks to examine whether the Bill is a path to professional mastery or a huge barrier to access. The Black's Law Dictionary defines the term ‘pupillage’ as ‘a person under the authority of a tutor’. The Bill, by virtue of Section 86(1), seeks to create a 2-year compulsory pupillage for all new wigs. This is a post-call-to-bar apprenticeship initiative of the Legal Practitioners Act (Amendment Bill) 2025. The Bill aims at helping them gain mastery of the profession and practical experience, reform and improve professional ethics in the Nigerian legal profession. Is the Bill a path to professional mastery indeed, or a barrier to access? Let us first consider its merits. 

Firstly, it is unarguable that subjecting new lawyers to a 2-year compulsory training and mentorship will yield dividends, particularly, in terms of enriching their experience and expertise, thereby making them better positioned to thrive in the profession after the training. Secondly, Professional Ethics, taught in theory both at the LLB level and at the Law School, gives students little or no practical experience at all. This is exactly where the Bill comes in: lawyers learn to avoid little but costly mistakes in their relationships with the court, other lawyers and clients. This is achieved as the ‘pupil’ gets mentored by an older legal practitioner. Overall, such mentorship will produce lawyers that have keen sense of professional ethics, and not lawyers who behave like motor park hooligans, hence, strengthening the prestigious profession of Law and restoring its lost dignity.

 Thirdly, there is the nervousness that comes with every first time experience, and new lawyers are not exempted. Being among the best counsel during mock and moot trials in your undergraduate days or in the Law School is no immunity. Appearing before a real court, the stakes are higher: your gestures and words are weighed by the curious eyes and formidably analytical mind of the judge(s). Most new wigs are ‘reputed’ for shivering, stuttering and making a big mess of themselves during their first appearances. However, during the 2-year pupillage, the requisite confidence to stand boldly and make one’s submissions is both built and acquired. This is gradually instilled in the new wigs as they flank their principals in and out of courtrooms. 

Fourthly, it helps in fostering effective networking and fast-tracking the career growth of the ‘pupils’. Being under a principal for two full years affords you the opportunity of coming across notable personalities you would not have met if you were on your own. And most times, you end up creating ties which are not severed even after the two years. Also, while serving under a renowned lawyer during this period, you get to handle ‘big’ cases right up to the apex court. This in turn speeds up your pace in the profession. Many who zoom off into independent practice after being called to the Bar find themselves stuck in the lower shelf of the profession, with slim or no hope of rising to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). Now, let us consider the other side of the coin. Indisputably, the Bill has its dividends. However, that is not to mean that it is a utopian scheme. Since the Bill went viral, law students, legal practitioners, etc., have expressed disapproval, tagging the Bill, among other things, a barrier to access.

 The bitter fact that one would still have two whole years of compulsory pupillage after already spending about seven years on average is a huge setback. Law students, their guardians and sponsors, patiently undergo the pressing demands of studying Law with the consolation that immediately after finishing, they will become independent to explore different opportunities before them. This consolation is what the Bill is about to dash into pieces. It wants to hold them back, regardless of whatever opportunities beckoning on them, thereby truncating their path to access. 

Furthermore, it also exposes new wigs to the risks of exploitation, sexual harassment, financial hardship, etc., by unscrupulous senior lawyers. Law firms are likely to treat them as unwanted personnel or even a burden; thus, subjecting them to ridiculous remunerations, poor working conditions and lots more, which might jeopardize the whole aim of the mentorship. It is dreaded that junior lawyers may end up being assigned menial tasks - running personal errands for senior lawyers and other tasks completely unrelated to legal practice. They might also be treated as mere employees solely to maximize profits, and not as human resources to be trained and mentored for the good of the nation at large. 

The Law Graduates Association of Nigeria (LAWGAN) lamented that,’ . . . legislative reform must be driven by a clearly defined problem. However, no empirical or structural justification has been provided to demonstrate that the current system produces incompetent lawyers or that an additional compulsory pupillage is the necessary solution’. It views the Bill as duplicate of the existing vocational training provided by the Nigerian Law School; and finally concludes that, it might discourage young Nigerians from the legal profession. 

Conclusively, inasmuch as the Bill has the prospects of entrenching better professionalism, boosting the confidence of new lawyers, affording them a golden opportunity to network and fast-tracking their career growth, it is quite reprehensible to add two whole years to the already donkey years one takes to study Law.

Author: YOHANA MARY, Winner of the Maiden SI OLAWUNI ESSAY COMPETITION 2026

School: Federal University Wukari 

Level: 200Level

Phone: 08144488066

Gmail Address: maryyohanna931@gmail.com

Read More

Excellence Has No Gender: Dame Priscilla Kuye and Mrs. Oyinkasola Badejo-Okusanya SAN, FCIArb

 

Excellence Has No Gender: Dame Priscilla Kuye and Mrs. Oyinkasola Badejo-Okusanya SAN, FCIArb

The first time I heard the name Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, FCIArb was during one of my ADR lectures anchored by Dr. Obinna Okereke. While the lecture was ongoing, the lecturer distributed papers containing the profiles of some eminent personalities in the Nigerian ADR sector. One of those personalities was Mrs. Oyinkasola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN. A colleague stood up to read her profile aloud. It was inspiring and worthy of emulation. She has gone far in ADR practice and has set a standard for many of us coming behind.  In furtherance to the profile that was read, Dr. Okereke told us a few more things about her. My colleague and I looked at each other and saw in her a giant to look up to.  

Without mincing words, I later got to know that she was one of the aspirants for the NBA Presidential Election. I have always admired people who rise up to change old and conservative narratives. I wished her well.  

At the conclusion of the NBA Elections 2026, despite the glitches, what remained undeniable was this: her courage, competence, and excellence spoke louder than gender.  Dame Priscilla Kuye and Mrs. Oyinkasola Badejo-Okusanya SAN are proof that excellence has no gender. They have both broken barriers, mentored generations, and shown that leadership in law is about capacity, not chromosomes.  

To every young female lawyer and law student reading this: the ceiling is glass, and it can be broken. Let their stories remind us that we can aspire, we can lead, and we can excel. Arise to change the narration. 

Congratulations on this milestone and historic achievement Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, FCIArb 🎉 🎉 👏 🎉 

#ExcellenceHasNoGender #WomenInLaw

#BBOLD

#Arisetochangethenarration

 #NBA

 #ADR

SI OLAWUNI. 

Read More

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Humanity (4).

 

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Humanity(4) 

Hugo Grotius the earliest writer on international law, advocated for humane behaviour even in warfare 'lest by imitating wild beasts too much we forget to be human'. Hence we move on to the fourth principle of international humanitarian law. 

4. Principle of Humanity (and Prohibition of Unnecessary Suffering/Superfluous Injury)

All persons affected by armed conflict must be treated humanely, without adverse distinction. It is forbidden to inflict suffering or injury beyond what is necessary to achieve legitimate military aims. Weapons and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited.

Statutory Authority:

Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions (1949): Provides minimum protections in non-international conflicts, prohibiting violence to life and person, torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity.

Additional Protocol I, Article 35(2): 'It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.'

Judicial Authority:

The ICTY in Prosecutor v. Čelebići (1998) affirmed that elementary considerations of humanity underlie the entire body of the IHL. The ICJ has repeatedly invoked humanity as a guiding principle, including in the Nuclear Weapons opinion.

Arrest other than to wound. Wound other than to kill. If necessary, kill humanely. 

#BasicPrinciplesofIHL

#IHL

#RuesofWar

#ihlenthusiast 

SI OLAWUNI.

Read More

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Precautions (3)

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Precautions (3)

3. Principle of Precautions in Attack (and Against the Effects of Attacks)

International Humanitarian Law encompasses the rules and principles that regulate the conduct of war. Through several principles and rules of engagement in war, the International Humanitarian Law seeks to mitigate the egregious effects of war and protects certain individuals. The principle of precautions oblige parties to the war to take constant care to spare civilians and civilian objects during military operations. This includes active duties for attackers (e.g., verifying targets, choosing appropriate weapons and tactics) and passive duties for defenders (e.g., not locating military objectives near civilians where feasible).

Statutory Authority:

Additional Protocol I, Article 57 (Precautions in Attack): Requires doing everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives, choosing means and methods that minimize incidental civilian harm, and canceling or suspending attacks if they may be disproportionate. Advance warnings must be given when circumstances permit.

Article 58 (Precautions Against the Effects of Attacks): Defenders must, to the extent feasible, remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives, avoid locating military objectives near densely populated areas, and take other protective measures.

Customary rules (ICRC Rules 15–21) extend these obligations to non-international armed conflicts.

Judicial Authority:

The ICTY in Prosecutor v. Blaškić (2000) and related cases has clarified the "feasible" standard as what is practicable in the circumstances, balancing military and humanitarian considerations. Tribunals have stressed that commanders must use available intelligence and technology to minimize harm.

This principle operationalizes distinction and proportionality in practice.

SI OLAWUNI. 

Read More

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Proportionality (2).

 Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law: Principle of Proportionality (2). 

2. Principle of Proportionality

This principle advocates that when targeting a legitimate military objective, an attack is prohibited if it is expected to cause incidental civilian harm (loss of life, injury, or damage to civilian objects) that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The principle recognises that some collateral damage may occur but sets a strict limit on it.

Statutory Authority:

Additional Protocol I, Article 51(5)(b): An attack is indiscriminate (and thus prohibited) if it "may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

Also, in Rule 14 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) it recognises this principle as a customary law. This implies that it is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It requires a balancing exercise by the attacker, considering factors such as the accuracy of weapons, location of targets, and available intelligence.

Judicial Authority:

The ICTY in Prosecutor v. Kupreškić (2000) described proportionality as a fundamental rule requiring commanders to weigh anticipated civilian harm against military gain. In Galić, the Tribunal further elaborated on its application to shelling campaigns.

The ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons opinion (1996) affirmed proportionality and distinction as central to IHL. More recent jurisprudence, including ICTY cases like Prlić et al. (2017), has examined proportionality in the context of urban warfare and shelling, emphasizing that the assessment must be based on information reasonably available at the time.

Proportionality is closely linked to distinction: an attack that fails the proportionality test becomes unlawful even if directed at a valid target.

In conclusion, this principle guides against the use of means and methods of warfare which is above the military objectives in an armed conflict. Therefore an attack is prohibited if it is expected to cause incidental civilian harm (loss of life, injury, or damage to civilian objects) that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

SI OLAWUNI.

Read More

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law : Principle of Distinction (1)

Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law : Principle of Distinction (1)

International humanitarian law (IHL), otherwise known as the law of armed conflict or the law of war, is a branch of public international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflicts. Its primary purpose is to limit the effects of war by protecting persons who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities (such as civilians, wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and medical personnel) and by restricting the means and methods of warfare. IHL applies in both international armed conflicts (between states) and non-international armed conflicts (between a state and non-state armed groups or between such groups), though the scope of rules may differ.

The basic principles of IHL are fundamental in armed conflict. They strike a balance between military necessity (legitimate military goals) and humanity (the obligation to minimize suffering and protect human dignity). The first principle that will be considered is the principle of distinction.

 

1. Principle of Distinction

The principle of distinction requires parties to an armed conflict to differentiate at all times between civilians (and civilian objects) and combatants (and military objectives). Attacks may only be directed against the latter; civilians and civilian objects must never be the object of attack. This is often described as one of the "cardinal principles" of IHL.

Statutory Authority

Pursuant to Article 48 Additional Protocol I (1977) :

 "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

Article 51(2): The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack.

Article 52(2): Defines a military objective as one that "by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

This principle is also rooted in customary law (ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 1) and applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Indiscriminate attacks (those not directed at a specific military objective, or whose effects cannot be limited) are prohibited under Article 51(4) and (5).

Judicial Authority

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) identified distinction as a "cardinal principle" of IHL, forming part of the fabric of humanitarian law and applying to all weapons and methods of warfare.

Furthermore, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Prosecutor v. Galić (2003) convicted the accused for crimes involving indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Sarajevo, affirming that the prohibition on attacking the civilian population as such is a fundamental rule of customary IHL applicable in all conflicts. Similarly, in Prosecutor v. Strugar (2005), the ICTY addressed shelling of Dubrovnik, reinforcing the duty to distinguish.

The principle extends to prohibiting attacks on persons hors de combat (out of the fight, such as the wounded, surrendering soldiers, or detainees).

In conclusion, the cardinal principle of distinction in armed conflict advocates the protection of civilian and civilian objects during the conduct of the armed conflict. 

SI OLAWUNI.

Read More

Modern International Humanitarian Law: An Appraisal of the Historical Development of the Modern International Humanitarian Law.

 

Modern International Humanitarian Law: An Appraisal of the Historical Development of the Modern International Humanitarian Law.

Before delving into the historical background of the international humanitarian law (IHL), it is imperative to have a glimpse of the meaning of the concept of ‘international humanitarian law’ and its objectives. The Black’s Law Dictionary describes the international humanitarian law as the law dealing with such matters as the permissible use of weapons and other means of warfare, the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian population in armed conflicts, and generally the direct impact of war on human life and liberty. 

The objectives of international humanitarian law includes: 

1.  The protection of persons who were not or are no longer directly engage in hostility, (hors de combatant) such as the wounded, shipwrecked, prisoners of war and civilians. 

2. Generally, to moderate the devastating effects of armed conflict. 

3. To strike a balance between the attainment of the objects of armed conflict and the considerations of humanity.

The historical evolution of the modern international humanitarian law (IHL) is repleted with segmented events that happened at different epoch. Prior to the 19th century, efforts had been made to protect individuals from the devastating effects of war. Interestingly, it was until the second half of the 19th century that international treaties regulating warfare including rights and protection for victims of armed conflicts, emerged. Two men, Guillaume Henri Dufour - a Swiss army officer, and Henry Dunant a Swiss businessman are the recognised architects of the modern international humanitarian law.

The seminal conversation between the two men brought about an idea on the need for effective legal frameworks on the protection of certain individuals and permissible conduct in war. During the course of their conversation, Henri Dufour being a Swiss army officer boosted of the glorious events of war; how gratifying it was to witness casualties and countless number of lives being wasted away in war. However, in the opinion of Henry Dunant, the Swiss Businessman, it would be a good idea to use the meeting of army officers of different nations to discuss on the right conduct in war. This would birth a convention which would be inviolate and agreed upon by the army officers in the course of war. The conversation between these two men was seen as a seminal and pivotal movement in the development of modern international Humanitarian law. 

In 1859, Henry Dunant, the Swiss businessman while on his way to Italy, he witnessed the Battle of Solferino in which countless people were killed and many destruction were recorded. Having witnessed this war, he was moved to recount his experience in writing. He wrote a book entitled, ‘Memory of Solferino’ which was published in1862. His friend, Henri Dufuor being an army officer supported him. Dunant conceived the idea of establishing a group solely meant for the relief of the militarily wounded on the battle field. The combined effort of the two men resulted in the birth of the first Geneva Convention of 1864.  

With the passage of time, three persons joined the two men in their movement. They were Gustave Moynier, Louis Appia and Theodore Maunoir. They formed a group known as the ‘Committee of Five’ This group was later known as the ‘International Committee for the Relief of the Militarily Wounded’ in 1863. Later, this was metamorphosed to the ‘International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) in 1878. The ICRC is the foremost humanitarian movement and the watchdog of the international humanitarian law. 

Owing to the pressure from the five founding members of the ICRC, the Swiss Government called for a diplomatic congress in 1864 to discuss on the rules and conduct to be observed in war. In 1864 at Geneva the first Geneva convention was called and 16 countries attended the convention. At the end, 12 countries signed and and adopted the first Geneva convention ‘Convention on the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded Armies in the Field’ on 22 August 1864. This marked the birth of the modern international humanitarian law.

  

However, it is pertinent to state that the first Geneva Convention of 1864 was not the first law on war as there was the Lieber Code of 1863. This code did not enjoy universal application as it was limited to only soldiers fighting for the Union during the American Civil War. 

 

The first Geneva Convention signified a milestone achievement in the development of international humanitarian law. It establishes the rules for protecting wounded soldiers and medical personnel during wartime. The Convention, which was a multilateral treaty, codified and strengthened ancient, fragmentary and scattered laws and customs of war protecting wounded and sick combatants and those caring for them.

The first Geneva Convention of 1864 was characterised by:

1. Multilateral in nature as it is open to all countries

2. It is the first universal codified rules on the conduct of war

3. It is not discriminatory in the sense that it is made to protect the combatants of the belligerent states

4. Respect for and marking of medical personnel, transport and equipment using an emblem (a red cross on white background).

As a result of the lapses observed from the first Geneva Convention 1864, there arose a need for another convention. In 1886 at Geneva 35 countries converged to discuss on the development of the first Geneva Convention which had only 10 articles. At the Convention, 35 Articles were added to the first Geneva Convention which further provided for the passage of information between the hostile states in respect of the wounded prisoners of war . These information provisions evolved into today’s Central Prisoners of War Information Agency, and the Central Information Agency for Protected Persons (see the 1949 Geneva Convention III, article 123 and Geneva Convention IV, article 140, respectively). The Agencies are further improvements on the provision of article 14 of the 1907 Hague Regulation IV which provides that: ‘An inquiry office for prisoners of war is instituted … to reply to all inquiries about the prisoners….’ They collect information on prisoners of war and protected persons and transmit it to their states of origin or residence, informing not only the state but the families, of the status and whereabouts of loved ones held by the opposing side.

Between 1914-1918, the horrific and horrendous first Wold War occurred which resulted in the loss of lives and properties of millions of lives and properties. Partially, the cause of the war could be attributed to the omission of the prohibition of the use of force in the Geneva Convention 1864. At the end of the war in 1918, delegates from several countries of the world gathered together at Versailles in France, there the Treaty of Versailles was adopted on 28 June 1919. This was done in order to forestall the recurrence of the first world war casualties. However, there were loopholes in the treaty. The Treaty did not outlaw the use of force. The provision mandating nations to first explore pacific means of settlement of disputes in ways similar to arbitration (quite similar to the provision of The Hague Convention II which forbade war against a debtor state on the condition that it would submit itself to an arbitrational settlement) with a three month window for the delict state to make amends. If after the three months, the situation remains, then the delict state becomes the enemy of the entire League. 

The 1928 period witnessed the emergence of a pact called the Brain Kellog Pact 1928 which enjoined all parties states to abstain from the use of force and to adopt pacific means of settlement of dispute which is similar to arbitration.  

Between 1939-1945, the Second World War occurred which led to severe casualties and destruction of lives and properties. Critics attributed the cause of the first and second world wars to the volatile nature of the of the human rights which made it prone to gross abuse and violation at the material time. 

 

After the end of the second world war in 1945, the world leaders converged at New York to establish a peaceful world organization called United Nations. Pursuant to the Preamble of the United Nations Charter, the United Nations is formed primarily to save succeeding generations from war and to recognise and respect the fundamental rights of every human . During this moment there was a significant shift towards the universal recognition and protection of the rights of humans. In 1948, December 10, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was massively adopted by every nation. This was also done to forestall a recurrence of another horrendous war.   

Furthermore, in a bid to eradicate threat or use of force in the international system, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter provides that every state is to refrain from the threat or use of force in relation with other states. However, Article 51 of the Charter provides for an exception in respect to the right of self defence of a state subject to the approval of the Security Council. 

Owing to the unattainable task of complete eradication of armed conflict therefore, there is a need for a more wholesome rules in the interest of humanity whenever war happens. This brought about other diplomatic conference in Geneva in 1994 that gave birth to the four Geneva Conventions in a row, namely:

1. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; 

2. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; 

3. Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War;

 and 

4. Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. 

Since the enactment of the above treaties there has been several treaties, which have helped, directly or indirectly in the development and the shaping of international humanitarian law.

In conclusion, the development of the modern international humanitarian law is divided into several epochs which are influenced by several incidents. The work of Henry Dunant, the Swiss businessman along with the other founding members of the ICRC cannot be underestimated in the development of the legal frameworks on the rule of war. This has contributed to the development of the modern international humanitarian law. Also, this legacy birthed the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) which is an uber-vibrant organisation in the international humanitarian law.   

Read More