Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has delivered a sweeping judgment nullifying the enforcement of a three-year suspension imposed on Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. In a ruling delivered on Monday, September 28, 2026, the court declared the enforcement of the LPDC's July 29, 2026 direction against Gadzama unconstitutional, unlawful, and inconsistent with the 1999 Constitution. The judgment, delivered in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026, represents a significant rebuke of the disciplinary body and raises fundamental questions about the fairness and legality of Nigeria's legal disciplinary system.
The court, presided over by Justice Obiora-Atuegwu Egwuatu, held that enforcing the LPDC direction against Gadzama in the absence of an effective appellate mechanism was inconsistent with Sections 36(1), 36(2) and 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Section 36 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, while Section 6(6)(b) addresses judicial powers. The court further held that the LPDC lacked jurisdiction in the matter, rendering its decision against Gadzama unenforceable. The court consequently restrained the respondents from implementing, publishing, transmitting, enforcing or otherwise giving effect to the LPDC direction as it relates to Gadzama. It also restrained the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making or causing to be made any disciplinary notation against Gadzama pursuant to the LPDC direction or treating its publication or dissemination as a final disciplinary determination against him.
The respondents in the suit are the Body of Benchers, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, and Chris Alashi. The case arose from a long-running dispute over the administration and distribution of compensation connected to the Zaki-Biam litigation in Benue State, which involved competing claims over legal representation and professional fees. In October 2001, soldiers invaded communities in and around Zaki Biam, killing over 200 villagers and destroying properties in retaliation for the discovery of the corpses of 19 soldiers. Some victims and survivors instituted legal action against the Federal Government at the Federal High Court in Enugu, seeking compensation for deaths, destruction of property, and violations of their fundamental rights. In July 2007, Justice Lewis Allagoa awarded the plaintiffs N41.8 billion in compensation against the Federal Government. Dissatisfied, the Federal Government approached the Court of Appeal but subsequently entered into negotiations with the plaintiffs to settle the case out of court. The parties reportedly agreed on a sum of N8 billion. The controversy erupted after reports that the compensation would be paid to the Benue State Government under the administration of Gabriel Suswam, prompting warnings from senior lawyers Itsay Sagay and Mike Ozekhome against paying the funds to the state government.
The dispute that led to the LPDC proceedings involved a complaint by lawyer Chris Alashi, who alleged that Gadzama and another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, interfered with his representation of some of the judgment creditors. The LPDC, in its July 29, 2026 direction, suspended Gadzama from legal practice for three years and Ulegede for two years, after finding them liable for breaching various provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023. The committee directed that all heads of superior courts of record in Nigeria be notified of the decision, with the suspensions taking effect from the date of judgment.
Gadzama consistently maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. He argued that he had never had a professional relationship with Alashi or received instructions from him and that he had instead been separately instructed by some of the judgment creditors through written letters of instruction. He stated that the complaint against him alleged that he improperly took over another lawyer's brief, solicited clients, and wrongfully appropriated professional fees, describing the allegations as unfounded. He contended that the documentary evidence before the committee did not support the findings made against him and that the proceedings had fundamentally misconstrued the nature of the underlying dispute, subjecting him to professional discipline over issues principally involving representation, retainership and professional fees.
Following the LPDC's decision, Gadzama approached the Federal High Court, seeking judicial review and an order of certiorari to quash the disciplinary direction. His lawyers, led by Bolaji Ayorinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, argued that there was no effective statutory mechanism for him to appeal the LPDC decision. On August 20, 2026, Justice Egwuatu granted Gadzama leave to apply for an order of certiorari to bring the LPDC decision before the court for review, allowing the legal questions surrounding the legality, constitutional validity and procedural fairness of the disciplinary process to be considered. The court subsequently fixed the substantive matter for hearing, leading to Monday's judgment.
The judgment has significant implications for the legal profession in Nigeria. By declaring the enforcement of the LPDC direction unconstitutional and holding that the committee lacked jurisdiction, the court has called into question the disciplinary body's procedures and the absence of an effective appellate mechanism for lawyers sanctioned by the LPDC. The decision also restrains the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making any disciplinary notation against Gadzama, effectively preventing the LPDC's decision from being entered into the Roll of Legal Practitioners. For Gadzama, a prominent figure in the Nigerian legal community, the judgment is a complete exoneration and a repudiation of the disciplinary action against him. For the LPDC, it is a stark reminder that its proceedings must comply with constitutional requirements of fair hearing and due process. The case will likely prompt broader discussions about the need for reform of the legal disciplinary system to ensure that it provides adequate avenues for appeal and judicial oversight. As of the time of this report, the LPDC and the Body of Benchers had not issued any public statements on the judgment.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments