A bill proposing a mandatory two-year apprenticeship for newly qualified lawyers in Nigeria has sparked sharp debate across the legal profession following its passage of second reading at the National Assembly.
The proposal forms part of a broader amendment to the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004. If eventually passed into law, it would require every lawyer newly called to the Bar to undergo a compulsory two-year pupillage under senior practitioners before commencing full legal practice.
At present, Nigerian law graduates are eligible to practise immediately after completing the Nigerian Law School programme and being called to the Bar. The proposed amendment would significantly alter this long-standing pathway.
Findings by The Guardian reveal a clear divide between senior members of the profession and younger lawyers on the issue.
A recently called lawyer, Goodluck Enebeli, told The Guardian that while he understands the intent behind the proposal, he has reservations about its impact on young lawyers.
According to him, the additional two years would unnecessarily prolong the journey to full legal practice.
“Students spend a minimum of six years studying law at the undergraduate level, sometimes more due to ASUU strikes. Law School takes another year, and about six months for results and call to the Bar. Adding a two-year pupillage means it could take eight or nine years before one can practise law,” he said.
Enebeli argued that rather than introducing a separate apprenticeship period, the Nigerian Law School curriculum should be expanded to about 18 months to accommodate more intensive practical training.
He further attributed the push for pupillage to poor remuneration for young lawyers.
“Young lawyers leave after a year or so because senior lawyers are unwilling to pay them fairly. It is unjust to expect graduates to survive on ₦100,000 or ₦150,000 simply because they are young,” he added.
The Law Graduates Association of Nigeria (LAWGAN) has also rejected the proposal. In a statement issued on December 24, LAWGAN President Kayode Bello warned that a mandatory apprenticeship, if not properly reformed, would create redundancy and impose additional financial and time burdens on law graduates.
In contrast, renowned legal practitioner Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, described the proposed pupillage as a positive and much-needed reform.
“It is a very good idea. Fresh law graduates, although licensed to practise, still need hands-on experience under accredited senior lawyers to truly understand legal practice. From my nearly 50 years of experience, returning to structured pupillage would be beneficial,” Agbakoba told The Guardian.
Supporting this view, Adebare Akinwunmi, a partner at CrestHall Attorneys, said a properly structured pupillage system could significantly improve professionalism within the legal sector.
“The gap between academic training and real-world practice remains a concern. A well-designed pupillage can help bridge that divide,” he said.
However, Akinwunmi cautioned that without strict rules and enforcement mechanisms, the system could be abused.
“There must be safeguards to prevent unpaid or underpaid servitude and toxic work environments. Minimum remuneration standards and structured learning outcomes are essential,” he added.
He concluded that while the proposal has the potential to produce more competent and ethical lawyers, its success would depend entirely on proper regulation and enforcement.