A Fresh Case For Reducing The LLB Programme From Five To Three Years: Addressing The Bar Finals Crisis And Aligning With Global Standards – By Charles Ude, Esq

A FRESH CASE FOR REDUCING THE LLB PROGRAMME FROM FIVE TO THREE YEARS: ADDRESSING THE BAR FINALS CRISIS AND ALIGNING WITH GLOBAL STANDARDS

By Charles Ude, Esq
Legal Practitioner and Author
Email: Charlesude2014@gmail.com

A CONGRATULATORY AND WELCOMING MESSAGE

Before I roll up my sleeves and plunge into the substance of this paper, it is fitting, indeed, it would be my great pleasure to pause and offer a resounding salute to Mrs. Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, on her historic election and assumption of office as the 33rd President of the Nigerian Bar Association. She is the first woman ever to be elected to that exalted position in the Association’s history, and only the second woman to lead the Bar since its formation in 1933. Her election, secured with 12,317 votes in a keenly contested three-way race, represents a watershed moment for the legal profession and for gender inclusion in Nigeria.

President Badejo-Okusanya brings to the Bar a distinguished career spanning litigation, arbitration, and public service, including her tenure as General Counsel to the Governor of Lagos State and her elevation to the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria in September 2025. Her campaign slogan , “A Bolder Bar That Works for Everyone” , focused on lawyers’ welfare, institutional accountability, and reducing the cost of legal practice. It is our earnest hope that her presidency will provide the bold, reformist leadership necessary to tackle the crisis in legal education that this paper addresses. We welcome her with enthusiasm and pledge our support for a transformative tenure.

I also record my profound gratitude to the immediate past President, Mazi Afam Josiah Osigwe, SAN, whose convening of the 2026 NBA Legal Education Summit and courageous questioning of the five-year LLB model provided the intellectual foundation for the reforms advocated herein. He planted the seed; we now water it.

INTRODUCTION: A STORM BREWING IN PLAIN SIGHT

There is a quiet storm brewing in Nigeria’s legal education landscape , a tempest that has been gathering force for decades, yet one that many have chosen to ignore. At the 2026 NBA Legal Education Summit, the then President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, stood before his colleagues and asked a question that many have whispered but few have dared to voice: why must a Nigerian law student spend five years earning an LLB degree when their counterparts in England do it in three, and when the quality of graduates emerging from our system continues to raise serious concerns?

The statistics are sobering , indeed, they are enough to make one’s blood run cold. In the December 2025 Bar Final Examination, 1,067 candidates failed out of 7,602 who sat for the exam, representing a pass rate of only 79.1 per cent, a decline from the previous year’s 84 per cent. Even more alarming, in the May 2026 Bar Final resit examination, 983 out of 1,955 candidates failed, a staggering 50.3 per cent failure rate, up sharply from 36.3 per cent in the 2025 resit. These are not just numbers on a page. These are thousands of young Nigerians who have spent five years in university, incurred significant financial burdens that would make a banker weep, and watched their dreams of joining the legal profession slip through their fingers like sand through an hourglass.

This paper argues that reducing the LLB programme from five to three years, accompanied by a focused, practical curriculum, is not merely desirable, it is urgently necessary. The clock is ticking, and we cannot afford to dither.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT FIVE-YEAR MODEL: AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

The five-year LLB programme in Nigeria was not designed by accident, but it has certainly outlived its purpose, like a horse and buggy in the age of automobiles. The current structure forces students to spend an excessive amount of time on theoretical instruction that often duplicates what is later taught at the Nigerian Law School. As the then NBA President astutely observed, “keeping a person in a law faculty for five years will not improve the quality of legal education” and “some of the courses offered in universities are, in reality, subsumed under some courses that are of practical relevance to legal practice.” In other words, we are asking students to climb the same mountain twice.

What do we find when we look at the evidence? The high failure rates at the Bar finals tell a story that is difficult to ignore, indeed, it screams at us. The December 2025 results showed that while 212 candidates earned first-class honours, a mere 2.7 per cent of the total—a significant number of candidates, 1,622 (21.3%), could only manage a Pass grade, while 314 (4.1%) received Conditional Pass grades. These are graduates who have already spent five years studying law at the university level. If five years of university legal education cannot adequately prepare a student for the Bar finals, then something is fundamentally wrong with the content and delivery of that education, not merely its duration. The rot runs deeper than the skin.

The crisis is compounded by the accreditation scandal in Nigerian law faculties, a can of worms that has been opened wide. In 2024, the Council of Legal Education suspended admissions into the law faculties of nine universities that had wilfully admitted and graduated students before obtaining accreditation. As of recent reports, only the University of Lagos enjoyed full accreditation status, while dozens of others operated on provisional, interim, or suspended accreditation. Yet the number of approved law faculties has ballooned from four in the early 1960s to approximately 122 in 2026. This proliferation, without corresponding quality assurance, has degraded standards across the board. We are suffering from a crisis of quantity over quality.

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu has raised valid concerns about comparing Nigeria’s five-year LLB with the UK’s three-year programme, arguing that the quality of pre-university education differs significantly between the two countries. This is a point well taken, but it is precisely why reform must go beyond merely shortening the duration. A three-year LLB in Nigeria must be accompanied by a radical overhaul of curriculum content, teaching methods, and entry standards. The goal is not simply to reduce years but to improve quality through focus and relevance. We must kill two birds with one stone.

GLOBAL PRACTICES: WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES

When we look beyond our shores, the argument for a three-year LLB becomes even more compelling like a beacon in the fog.

The United Kingdom , the very jurisdiction from which Nigeria inherited its common law tradition—offers a three-year LLB programme for undergraduate students. This is followed by professional training (the SQE or BPTC) that prepares graduates for practice. The total timeline to qualification is significantly shorter than Nigeria’s current model, yet the UK produces some of the world’s most respected lawyers. They have cracked the code.

The then NBA President rightly drew attention to the University of Buckingham in England, which offers a two-year LLB programme. Remarkably, Nigerian students have for years taken advantage of this accelerated programme, graduating in two years and returning home to qualify at the Nigerian Law School. If a Buckingham LLB graduate can successfully navigate the Nigerian Law School after only two years of university legal education, what justification remains for insisting that Nigerian students spend five? The answer is simple: none.

Australia offers a three to four-year LLB programme, with graduates proceeding to practical legal training (PLT) before admission. South Africa, another common law jurisdiction with similar developmental challenges, has its undergraduate LLB under review precisely because of poor outcomes: only 20% of entrants complete the programme within four years, and only about 50% of graduates enter the legal profession at all. Some South African universities have already discontinued the undergraduate LLB, while others require students to first register in Arts, Commerce, or Science before being screened for law admission in the second year. They are not afraid to change course when the ship is sinking.

Canada and the United States take a different approach—law is studied at the graduate level, requiring a prior undergraduate degree followed by three years of law school, totalling approximately seven years of higher education. This model is longer but serves a different educational philosophy. Nigeria, however, follows the UK model of direct-entry undergraduate legal educationand, if we are to follow that model, we should follow it consistently, including its shorter duration. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.

What these comparisons reveal is that Nigeria’s five-year LLB is an outlier a sore thumb sticking out. We are requiring our students to spend two additional years in university compared to their UK counterparts, without any demonstrable improvement in outcomes, as the Bar finals failure rates painfully demonstrate.

REDUCING THE LLB TO THREE YEARS: A PRACTICAL PATH FORWARD

Reducing the LLB to three years does not mean reducing the quality of legal education. On the contrary, it means focusing legal education on what truly matters, separating the wheat from the chaff.

First, a three-year LLB should be structured around core subjects only. The then NBA President proposed that the only compulsory subjects for eligibility to sit the Bar examination should be: constitutional law, administrative law, criminal law, tort, contract, land law, equity and trusts, and the Nigerian legal system. This is a sensible and focused curriculum that ensures students master the foundational principles of law without being burdened by peripheral courses that add little practical value. This proposition finds strong support in the earlier work of Chima Umezuruike, who, in his seminal article “Reform of Legal Education and the Legal Profession in 21st Century Nigeria,” argued that the only subjects in the LLB degree that should be compulsory for eligibility to sit the Bar examination should be the core subjects listed above. Umezuruike contended that subjects like company law, commercial law, and employment law are merely extensions of contract, equity, trust, and tort, and that “a proper grounding in the core subjects will enable a lawyer to pick up these non-core subjects in practice.” He further observed that “nothing useful is achieved by forcing a student to study the LLB for 5 years” and that “2/3 years should be sufficient for the study of the LLB degree,” since only the core subjects are what a person truly needs to be a lawyer. This convergence of views between Umezuruike and the then NBA President underscores the growing consensus that a lean, core-subject-focused curriculum is the pathway to reform. They are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Second, the reduced duration must be accompanied by a pedagogical shift. As the then NBA President emphasised, legal education must move beyond “excessive reliance on rote learning” and embrace “active teaching methods such as moot courts, legal clinics, workshops, and the case-problem method of instruction.” A shorter programme that is intensive, practical, and competency-based will produce better lawyers than a longer programme that is diffuse and theoretical. It is worth noting that the Council of Legal Education last reviewed its curriculum in 2007 following NBA intervention, nearly two decades ago. The curriculum has since become outdated like a dinosaur in a museum, even as legal practice has been transformed by technology, artificial intelligence, and globalisation.

Third, reducing the duration will alleviate the financial burden on students. As the then NBA President noted, a shorter LLB programme “will no doubt be a welcome relief for many law graduates who are increasingly finding it difficult to pay the Law School fees, not to mention clothing, feeding, and shouldering other financial burdens.” The cost of legal education in Nigeria has become prohibitive for many families, it has become a mountain too steep to climb. At private universities such as Nile University, law students pay approximately ₦4,550,000 per session, amounting to roughly ₦22.7 million over five years, excluding accommodation, textbooks, and living expenses. Even at public universities, where tuition is lower, the cumulative cost of five years of accommodation, feeding, and materials represents a significant drain on household resources. Add to this the Nigerian Law School fees (Bar Part II currently costs ₦296,000 for Nigerians, plus accommodation, dinners, and other charges), and the total cost of becoming a lawyer in Nigeria approaches a figure that excludes talented but poor students from the profession. Reducing the duration by two years represents a significant reduction in tuition fees, accommodation costs, and other expenses, potentially democratising access to the legal profession. It opens the door wider.

ADDRESSING THE BAR FINALS FAILURE RATE: THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS

The high failure rate at the Bar finals is not merely a problem of student inadequacy, it is a symptom of a deeper systemic failure. When 50.3 per cent of resit candidates fail the examination, we must ask ourselves: what is happening in the five years before these students reach the Law School? The silence is deafening.

The evidence suggests that the quality of university legal education varies widely across Nigeria’s many law faculties, a mixed bag if ever there was one. The Council of Legal Education has had to withdraw accreditation from some law faculties that could not meet required standards. This is not a problem that will be solved by keeping students in university for five years, it will be solved by ensuring that all law faculties meet minimum standards of quality, and by focusing the curriculum on what truly matters.

A three-year LLB, properly implemented, would create a more competitive and rigorous educational environment. Students would have less time to waste on irrelevant courses and more incentive to master the core subjects that actually matter for practice. The Nigerian Law School would receive graduates who are better prepared in the fundamentals, reducing the need for remedial instruction and improving pass rates. It would be a win-win situation.

Moreover, the current system produces a troubling paradox: students spend five years in university, yet a significant proportion can only manage a Pass or Conditional Pass at the Bar finals. In December 2025, only 2.7% achieved First Class, while 21.3% managed only a Pass and 4.1% received a Conditional Pass. This distribution suggests that the five-year programme is not producing excellence, it is producing mediocrity at great cost. We are spending a fortune to produce average results.

REFORMING THE BAR FINALS: BEYOND DURATION

The Crisis of Pedagogy at the Nigerian Law School

While reducing the LLB to three years addresses the university phase of legal education, we cannot ignore the crisis at the Nigerian Law School itself. The shocking 50.3 per cent failure rate in the May 2026 resit examination raises urgent questions not only about the preparedness of candidates but also about the quality of instruction they receive at the Law School. The writing is on the wall.

If this were England, the Bar Standards Board or the Solicitors Regulation Authority would have long since intervened. Where pass rates decline precipitously, regulators investigate not only the candidates but also the teaching institutions. Sanctions would follow for institutions whose teaching methods, assessment standards, or curriculum fail to prepare students adequately. Yet in Nigeria, the conversation has focused exclusively on student inadequacy, never on the possibility that the Law School’s pedagogy might be part of the problem. It takes two to tango.

Let us be direct: a 50.3 per cent failure rate among resit candidates says as much about the teachers as it does about the taught. The Nigerian Law School has become a gatekeeping mechanism without being an educational institution in the true sense. It processes thousands of students through a rigid, one-size-fits-all programme that has remained largely unchanged for decades. The Law School insists on an antiquated method of instruction that privileges lecture-based, theoretical delivery over practical, skills-based learning. It tests memory rather than competence, and it penalises candidates who do not fit the mould. It is a square peg in a round hole.

The English Model: Teaching by Practitioners

In England, the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and the Bar Practice Course (BPC) are taught predominantly by full-time legal practitioners. During my LPC, over 60 per cent of my tutors were solicitors and barristers actively engaged in practice, not academics who had never set foot in a courtroom or a transactional negotiation. These practitioners brought real-world experience into the classroom. They did not simply teach the law; they taught how the law works in practice. They shared war stories, practical strategies, and the unwritten rules of legal practice that no textbook can capture. They were the real deal.

The contrast with Nigeria could not be starker,it is like night and day. In many instances, Law School tutors are academics whose only qualification is that they have taught the same course for decades. They may hold advanced degrees, but they lack practical experience in the very profession they are preparing students to enter. They teach as they were taught, by rote, by dictation, by examination of abstract principles, without any connection to the realities of practice. It is the blind leading the blind.

This is not merely an academic failing; it is a professional scandal. Law is a practical profession. You cannot learn to draft a contract by memorising the Sale of Goods Act. You cannot learn to cross-examine a witness by studying the Evidence Act. You cannot learn to negotiate a settlement by reading case law. These skills are learned by doing, by observing, and by being guided by experienced practitioners. Practice makes perfect.

If the Nigerian Law School is to fulfil its mandate, it must transform its faculty composition. A significant proportion of Law School tutors should be drawn from the ranks of experienced legal practitioners, Senior Advocates, solicitors with established practices, barristers with courtroom experience. These tutors should be appointed on part-time or sessional basis, bringing their practical expertise into the classroom. The Law School should also establish clinical fellowships that allow young practitioners to teach while maintaining their practices. We must bring the mountain to Mohammed.

Restructuring the Nigerian Law School Curriculum

The Bar Finals curriculum has also become ossified , stuck in a time warp. The legal profession has been transformed by technology, globalisation, and changing client expectations. Yet the Law School continues to test subjects in their traditional forms, without adequate attention to:

· Legal technology and e-discovery: How to manage electronic evidence, use document review software, and leverage AI for legal research.
· Alternative dispute resolution: While there is a token ADR component, it is not given the emphasis it deserves in a world where over 90% of civil disputes are resolved outside court.
· Legal project management: How to manage large-scale litigation or transactions, coordinate teams, and deliver value to clients efficiently.
· Commercial awareness: Understanding business contexts, reading financial statements, and advising clients on commercial strategy, not just legal rules.
· Digital forensics and cyber law: The fastest-growing area of legal practice, with virtually no coverage in the current curriculum.
· Client communication and relationship management: The soft skills that distinguish successful practitioners from mediocre ones.
· Wellness and ethics in practice: Addressing the mental health crisis in the legal profession and equipping young lawyers with coping strategies.

These are not luxuries; they are necessities. If Nigerian lawyers are to compete in an increasingly globalised legal market and, if they are to serve Nigerian clients with excellence, they must be equipped with 21st-century skills. A Law School curriculum last reviewed in 2007 simply cannot prepare students for the practice of law in 2026 and beyond. It is like using a typewriter in the age of artificial intelligence.

Accountability Mechanisms

The Council of Legal Education must introduce robust accountability mechanisms for the Nigerian Law School. These should include:

1. Performance-based funding: The Law School’s allocation should be tied to student outcomes, not just pass rates, but employment outcomes, client satisfaction, and alumni success.
2. Independent curriculum review: A standing committee of practitioners, academics, and international experts should review the curriculum biennially to ensure it remains relevant.
3. Faculty development requirements: Law School tutors should be required to undertake annual continuing professional development, including practical placements in law firms.
4. Investigation of teaching quality: Where failure rates spike (as they did in May 2026), an independent panel should investigate the quality of teaching, assessment, and curriculum delivery. If the problem lies with teaching, sanctions should follow.
5. Student feedback mechanisms: Systematic collection of student evaluations of teaching, with results published and acted upon.
6. International benchmarking: The Law School should regularly benchmark its curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment against leading institutions in comparable jurisdictions.

LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

The Legal Education (Consolidation, etc.) Act, Cap L10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 established the Council of Legal Education with responsibility for the legal education of persons seeking to become legal practitioners. The Council has the statutory authority to regulate legal education, including the duration and content of the LLB programme.

Section 1(2) of the Legal Education (Consolidation, etc.) Act provides that the Council shall have responsibility for the legal education of persons seeking to become legal practitioners. This gives the Council the power to review and reform the structure of legal education, including reducing the duration of the LLB programme. What is required is not a new law but the political will to exercise existing powers in the service of meaningful reform. The ball is in the Council’s court.

The 2026 NBA Legal Education Summit demonstrated that there is a growing consensus among stakeholders, including the NBA leadership, legal academics, and practitioners, that the current system is unsustainable. The Council of Legal Education must seize this moment of reform and act decisively. The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister for Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has already signalled support for improving legal education infrastructure. The political climate for reform has never been more favourable—and the election of President Badejo-Okusanya, with her stated commitment to reducing the cost of legal practice and building “a bolder bar that works for everyone,” provides an unprecedented opportunity to drive this agenda forward. The stars are aligning.

RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS

Objection 1: “Nigeria’s pre-university education is not strong enough for a three-year LLB.”

This is a valid concern, as raised by Chidi Anselm Odinkalu. However, the solution is not to keep students in university for an extra two years to compensate for weaknesses in secondary education. The solution is to reform secondary education, improve university entry standards, and ensure that the three-year LLB is rigorous and well-taught. A five-year programme that is poorly taught does not compensate for a weak foundation, it merely prolongs the problem. Moreover, if Nigerian students can complete a two-year LLB at Buckingham and succeed at the Nigerian Law School, the argument about inadequate secondary preparation collapses. It doesn’t hold water.

Objection 2: “A shorter programme will reduce quality.”

Quality is determined by curriculum content, teaching methods, and assessment standards, not by duration. A three-year programme that is intensive, practical, and focused on core subjects will produce graduates who are better prepared for practice than a five-year programme that is diffuse and theoretical. The evidence from the UK, Australia, and Buckingham demonstrates that three years (or even two) is sufficient for a high-quality legal education. South Africa’s experience, by contrast, shows that a longer undergraduate programme does not guarantee better outcomes. Length is no proxy for quality.

Objection 3: “The Nigerian Law School already provides practical training, the LLB should remain theoretical and lengthy.”

This objection misses the point. If the Nigerian Law School provides practical training, then the university LLB should focus on providing a strong theoretical foundation in core subjects, and this can be achieved in three years. The current five-year model duplicates content between the university and the Law School, wasting students’ time and resources. The then NBA President’s proposed list of eight core subjects, echoed earlier by Chima Umezuruike, aligns perfectly with what the Law School expects, eliminating redundancy. We are saying the same thing twice.

Objection 4: “What about the proliferation of law faculties and accreditation challenges?”

This objection actually strengthens the case for reform. With 122 approved universities and counting, many operating without full accreditation, the current system is already failing to ensure quality. A three-year LLB, coupled with stricter accreditation standards and a moratorium on new law faculties, would force existing institutions to concentrate resources on delivering excellence rather than spreading them thin across five years of diluted instruction. The Council of Legal Education should also publish annual Bar finals performance data by university, creating market pressure on underperforming faculties to improve or close. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Objection 5: “The Law School tutors are not the problem, the students are poorly prepared.”

This objection, while frequently voiced, does not withstand scrutiny, it collapses under its own weight. The Nigerian Law School is not merely an examining body; it is an educational institution. Its mandate extends beyond testing to teaching. If 50.3 per cent of resit candidates fail, that is not just a student problem, it is a teaching problem. The Law School must ask itself: are we teaching effectively? Are our methods appropriate? Is our curriculum fit for purpose? In England, a similar failure rate would trigger an investigation by the regulator, and sanctions would follow if teaching quality were found wanting. The Council of Legal Education must show the same courage and accountability. It must look in the mirror.

RECOMMENDATIONS: A 20-POINT PLAN FOR A BOLDER BAR

Based on the foregoing analysis, the following recommendations are urgently advanced:

A. Reform of the LLB Programme

1. Reduce the LLB to three years, effective from the 2027/2028 academic session, with the following structure:
   · Year 1: Foundational core subjects (Nigerian Legal System, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Contract)
   · Year 2: Intermediate core subjects (Tort, Land Law, Equity and Trusts, Administrative Law)
   · Year 3: Advanced study and skills development (including legal research, writing, and clinical components)
2. Restructure the curriculum to focus exclusively on the eight core subjects identified by the former NBA President and Chima Umezuruike, allowing students to specialise or take electives only after completing core requirements.
3. Adopt active teaching methods, including moot courts, legal clinics, workshops, and the case-problem method of instruction, reducing reliance on rote learning and lectures.
4. Establish stricter entry requirements for law programmes, including higher cut-off marks, aptitude tests, and interviews, to ensure that only students with genuine aptitude and commitment are admitted.
5. Implement robust accreditation standards, including regular inspections, publication of performance data, and a moratorium on new law faculties until existing faculties meet minimum standards.
6. Publish annual Bar finals performance data by university, creating transparency and market pressure on underperforming faculties.

B. Reform of the Nigerian Law School

7. Recruit significantly more practising lawyers as tutors, setting a target of at least 40% of tutors being full-time practitioners with a minimum of five years’ practice experience.
8. Establish clinical teaching fellowships allowing young practitioners to teach at the Law School while maintaining their practices.
9. Review and restructure the Bar Finals curriculum to reflect the realities of 21st-century practice, including:
   · Legal technology and e-discovery
   · Alternative dispute resolution (expanded)
   · Legal project management
   · Commercial awareness
   · Digital forensics and cyber law
   · Client communication and relationship management
   · Wellness and ethics in practice
10. Introduce independent curriculum review every two years, involving practitioners, academics, and international experts.
11. Implement performance-based funding for the Law School, tying allocations to student outcomes, employment rates, and alumni success.
12. Establish mandatory continuing professional development for Law School tutors, including annual practical placements in law firms.
13. Create an independent teaching quality investigation panel to investigate when failure rates spike significantly, with power to recommend sanctions.
14. Institutionalise student feedback systems, with results published and used to improve teaching quality.

C. Regulatory and Accountability Reforms

15. The Council of Legal Education should publish an annual legal education report detailing performance metrics across all law faculties and the Nigerian Law School.
16. Establish a standing legal education reform committee comprising representatives of the NBA, Council of Legal Education, Nigerian Law School, universities, and practitioners to monitor implementation and recommend further reforms.
17. Benchmark Nigerian legal education against international standards, with regular comparisons to the UK, Australia, and South Africa, and adopt best practices where appropriate.
18. Create a student support fund to assist indigent students with Law School fees, reducing the financial barrier to entry.
19. Introduce mental health and wellness programmes for law students and young lawyers, addressing the high rates of stress, anxiety, and depression in the profession.
20. Mandate post-qualification practical training for all new lawyers, similar to the Scottish and Australian models, ensuring that young lawyers receive structured mentorship and supervision in their early years of practice.

CONCLUSION: A CALL TO ACTION

The case for reducing the LLB from five to three years is compelling, it is a case that writes itself. It is supported by global practice, responds to the crisis of high failure rates at the Bar finals, alleviates the financial burden on students, and, most importantly, would improve the quality of legal education by making it more focused, practical, and relevant.

But reducing the LLB is only the beginning,it is the first step on a long journey. We must also reform the Nigerian Law School, its curriculum, its teaching methods, and the composition of its faculty. We must insist that Law School tutors are not just academics but practitioners who can teach the law in its living, breathing reality. We must hold the Law School accountable for its outcomes, as any professional school in any developed jurisdiction would be held accountable. The buck must stop somewhere.

As the then NBA President powerfully stated, “the imperativeness of a system of legal education that can produce lawyers with the necessary skills and capacity to meet the evolving needs of society has always been emphasised. The practical and focused content of university education will achieve better results even if it lasts for three years.”

We cannot continue to insist on a five-year LLB programme simply because “that is how it has always been done.” The legal profession is evolving. Technology is transforming legal practice. The needs of society are changing. Nigeria’s legal education system must evolve or risk irrelevance. We must either bend with the wind or be broken by it.

The Council of Legal Education has the statutory authority to act. The NBA, under the courageous leadership of Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, provided the vision and the platform. The evidence from other jurisdictions is clear. The failure rates are undeniable. The financial burden is unsustainable. What is needed now is the courage to reform and, the new NBA President, Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, has the mandate, the competence, and the fresh perspective to drive this transformation. The time is ripe.

Let us reduce the LLB to three years. Let us reform the Nigerian Law School. Let us focus the curriculum on what truly matters. Let us demand accreditation standards that mean something. Let us produce lawyers who are not just survivors of a prolonged educational ordeal, but competent, confident, and practice-ready professionals who can serve Nigeria’s justice system and contribute to national development.

The time for reform is now. History will not forgive us if we hesitate.

Charles Ude, Esq
Legal Practitioner and Author
Email: Charlesude2014@gmail.com

September 2026
CU