The Federal High Court in Abuja has declared the enforcement of a three-year suspension imposed on Joe-Kyari Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) unconstitutional.
The court also barred the implementation, publication, transmission or enforcement of the LPDC’s decision against Mr Gadzama, according to a statement shared with PREMIUM TIMES on Monday.
|
|
The statement from Mr Gadzama’s legal team noted that the court declared that implementing or enforcing the LPDC direction against Mr Gadzama, in the absence of an effective appellate mechanism, was “inconsistent with Sections 36(1), 36(2) and 6(6)(b)” of the Nigerian Constitution and was therefore “unconstitutional and unlawful”.
It said the court also held that the LPDC “lacked jurisdiction in the matter”, according to the statement.
|
|
|
|---|
The judge, Obiora Egwatu, further barred the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making or causing to be made any disciplinary notation against Mr Gadzama pursuant to the direction.
The court also barred the publication or dissemination of the direction as a “final disciplinary determination” against him.
The judgment followed Mr Gadzama’s challenge to the LPDC’s decision to suspend him from legal practice for three years.
Stay Ahead with Premium Times
Follow us on Google News and never miss breaking stories, investigations, and in-depth reporting.
Add as a preferred source on Google
He had sued the Body of Benchers, the LPDC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and Chris Alashi after the LPDC issued the direction on 29 July 2026 in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024, filed by Mr Alashi against Ocha Ulegede and another person.
The dispute arose from the administration and distribution of compensation connected to the Zaki-Biam massacre litigation involving competing claims over legal representation and professional fees.
Mr Gadzama maintained during the proceedings that he had never had a professional relationship with Mr Alashi or received instructions from him. He said he had instead been separately instructed by some of the judgement creditors.
The disciplinary proceedings nevertheless resulted in the LPDC directing that Mr Gadzama be suspended from legal practice for three years. The LPDC also suspended Ocha Ulegede for two years.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Judge Egwuatu had earlier granted Mr Gadzama leave to seek judicial review and an order of certiorari to bring the LPDC direction before it. This followed an ex parte application he filed on 19 August, through his lawyers led by Bolaji Ayorinde, also a SAN.
Mr Gadzama had sought in his substantive suit an order of certiorari quashing the direction of the LPDC.
His lawyers maintained in the application that there was currently no effective statutory mechanism for him to appeal the LPDC decision.
Mr Gadzama raised eight grounds against the LPDC direction and challenged the finding that Exhibit JK2 was forged because it bore Zaki Kaduna Mazan’s signature on 22 May 2015, although Mazan died on 11 September 2010.
His lawyers argued that this did not prove that Mr Gadzama forged, prepared or knew the document was forged, while the LPDC failed to establish his personal culpability or distinguish the alleged forgery from his responsibility.
They also challenged findings that he poached clients, citing Rule 27(4) of the 2023 Rules, and further accused the LPDC of mishandling conflicting affidavit evidence involving Mbayemen Masewuan and Patrick Twar.
Backstory
The disciplinary case arose from a long-running dispute over compensation for victims and survivors of the 2001 military operation in Zaki-Biam, Benue State.
The military operation followed the killing of 19 soldiers by suspected Tiv militia members. Survivors and families of those killed later sued the federal government over deaths, destruction of property and other losses arising from the operation. Premium Times previously reported that the Federal High Court awarded the plaintiffs N41.8 billion in damages in 2007.
The federal government appealed the judgement before the parties eventually reached an N8 billion settlement. The settlement was later adopted as a consent judgment by the Court of Appeal.
The dispute continued over the recovery and distribution of the money and the lawyers involved in the matter.
Mr Gadzama became involved in the dispute in 2015. He maintained that some of the judgement creditors had instructed him to challenge the N8 billion settlement and pursue recovery of the original N41.8 billion judgment.
Chris Alashi, who later petitioned the LPDC, disputed that account. Some judgment creditors also filed affidavits denying that they had instructed Mr Gadzama.
The dispute eventually reached the Court of Appeal, which rejected an attempt to set aside the N8 billion consent judgement. The appellate court also made observations about Mr Gadzama’s conduct in the matter.
In its 70-page direction dated 29 July, the committee said that Mr Gadzama poached and hijacked clients already represented by another lawyer, acted for some judgement creditors who later denied instructing him and continued taking steps in the case after some of them had expressly disowned him.
The LPDC later relied on parts of that judgement in reaching its disciplinary decision. It found Mr Gadzama guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from legal practice for three years.
Court overturns LPDC decision
In Monday’s judgement, the Federal High Court declared the LPDC direction of 29 July unconstitutional regarding Mr Gadzama.
The statement said .r Gadzama’s prayer granted by the court were subject to the establishment of an effective appellate platform through which decisions of the relevant disciplinary authorities could be challenged.
A central argument the senior lawyer raised in his suit was that there was no effective statutory mechanism for him to appeal the LPDC decision.
His lawyers relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi, delivered on 26 June, and a letter from the Body of Benchers dated 13 August, which they said confirmed that no Appeal Committee was in existence with appellate jurisdiction.
READ ALSO: Suspended Nigerian lawmaker apologises over alleged wife assault
The lawyers therefore argued that “there is presently no effective statutory appellate mechanism” through which Mr Gadzama could challenge the LPDC direction and contend that enforcing the direction as a final disciplinary decision in those circumstances raises constitutional questions under sections 36(1) and 36(2)(b).
The application described the continued enforcement of the decision, without an available appellate safeguard, as a “constitutional defect” that can be examined through judicial review.
Mr Gadzama also argued that implementation of the direction would effectively deprive him of a practical avenue to challenge the disciplinary decision.
The application said the Body of Benchers and LPDC were statutory bodies exercising public powers and were therefore subject to judicial review.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More News
