Mukaila Habeebullah reports,
On Friday 23rd of January, 2026, The Law Students Association of Nigeria (LAWSAN) Judiciary, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto (UDUS) chapter has commenced the hearing on the matter between Lamid Azeez and three others against LAWSAN President and others.
The suit, which was brought before the High Court of LAWSAN-UDUS Judiciary Division, was held at the Faculty of Law Moot Court complex, located at the University main campus.
Appearing for the claimants, Lamid Azeez, a 400-Level law student was the lead counsel alongside two other counsels, and Gbolahan Badru, a 500-Level student was the lead counsel appearing with two other counsels for the defendants.
Accordingly, the court was properly seated featuring three justices, including the Chief Judge of LAWSAN, Usama Abubakar, Justice Maryam Umar Ayomide and Justice Idoko Sadam Ifeanyin who have presided over the matter.
Recall that on the January 18th, 2025, the DIGEST PRESS made a publication following the legal action brought against the LAWSAN President, which was titled: “UDUS Law Students Sue LAWSAN Leadership Over Alleged Constitutional Violation,” featured the claims upon which the matter was instituted.
Thus, the report read in part: “A constitutional crisis has emerged within the Law Students’ Association of Nigeria (LAWSAN) at Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto chapter, as concerned members of the association institute legal action against its leadership over alleged breaches of the association’s constitution.”
While the hearing was concluded with the matter awaiting judgement to be passed, both parties through their lead counsels have spoken that they've confidence in the court wisdom to deliver justice, however whose the judgement favour.
Speaking with DIGEST PRESS correspondent, Lamid Azeez Esq, the lead counsel for the claimant/respondents noted the need to uphold the LAWSAN Constitutional principles.
“The Faculty of Law, like other democratic institutions operating under a written and codified constitution, is bound by its provisions. Any breach of the Constitution imposes a duty to uphold and defend it,” Lamid stated.
He further added explaining that the President acted ultra vires by appointing an Attorney-General without legislative confirmation, and the appointee does not meet the constitutional requirement of being a Senior Advocate of the Society.
Meanwhile, Lamid Azeez emphasized the beauty of advocacy saying that: “A court is not a battlefield but a place to display legal knowledge, assisting the court with the substance of the matter in order to arrive at a justiciable end. Perhaps more importantly, it was an avenue to learn from my senior colleagues.”
In the same respect, Gbolahan Badru Esq, the lead counsel for the defendants equally expressed his thought with regards to what transpired in the trial.
“As a counsel, sometimes it may be the facts that will be against you. Sometimes, it may be the law. Sometimes, it may even be both. And sometimes it may be the Court's conscience. Under each of these circumstances, never let go of your intellectual humility. It's what makes this profession of ours that noble,” Badru noted.
He added that, although the preliminary objection was resolved against them and while he respectfully believes that the ruling did not entirely align with what he considered the correct position of the law he was not dissatisfied that the objection was struck out rather than upheld.
He further emphasized that, that is because their foremost interest lies in having the court pronounce decisively on the substantive issues.
“Specifically, we seek a judicial determination on the validity of the provisions requiring that the Attorney-General must be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, a qualification not prescribed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as well as the implications of Section 40 of the Constitution. We are urging the court to exercise its review powers to set aside or expunge such requirements, among other reliefs, on constitutional grounds.” he stated.
However, both counsels concluded that while the matter is still pending for determination, it's within their constitutional right to appeal the decision of court when the needs call for it.