iDeemlawfulA proposed bill seeking to introduce a compulsory two-year pupillage for newly qualified lawyers in Nigeria has generated intense debate within the legal profession after scaling second reading at the National Assembly.
The proposal is embedded in a wider amendment to the Legal Practitioners Act, 2004. If it eventually becomes law, every newly called lawyer would be required to complete a mandatory two-year apprenticeship under senior legal practitioners before fully engaging in independent legal practice.
Currently, Nigerian law graduates can practise immediately after completing the Nigerian Law School programme and being called to the Bar. The proposed change would significantly modify this established route into the profession.
Investigations by The Guardian indicate a sharp split in opinion between senior lawyers and younger practitioners on the proposed reform.
MOST READ ARTICLES
A newly called lawyer, Goodluck Enebeli, told The Guardian that although he understands the intention behind the bill, he is concerned about how it would affect young lawyers.
He explained that extending the training period by two additional years would unduly delay entry into 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 suggested that instead of creating a separate apprenticeship phase, the Nigerian Law School programme could be extended to about 18 months to allow for more robust practical training.
He also linked the push for pupillage to issues of poor pay for junior 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 similarly opposed the proposal. In a statement released on December 24, LAWGAN President Kayode Bello cautioned that a compulsory apprenticeship, without proper restructuring, could lead to redundancy and impose extra financial and time pressures on law graduates.
Conversely, prominent legal practitioner Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, described the proposed pupillage as a necessary and welcome 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.
Backing this perspective, Adebare Akinwunmi, a partner at CrestHall Attorneys, said a properly implemented pupillage system could enhance professionalism across 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 warned that without clear regulations and enforcement, the system risks being misused.
“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 could help produce more skilled and ethical lawyers, its effectiveness would depend entirely on strong regulation and enforcement mechanisms.