The Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee's (LPDC) decision to suspend Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Joe-Kyari Gadzama from legal practice for three years is unconstitutional. The court also barred the implementation, publication, transmission, or enforcement of the LPDC's decision against Mr. Gadzama. This decision was made on the grounds that the LPDC's direction was inconsistent with Sections 36(1), 36(2), and 6(6)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution.
The LPDC had issued the direction on July 29, 2026, in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024, filed by Chris Alashi against Ocha Ulegede and another person. The dispute arose from the administration and distribution of compensation connected to the Zaki-Biam massacre litigation. Mr. Gadzama was accused of poaching clients, forging documents, and continuing to take steps in the case despite some clients disowning him. However, Mr. Gadzama maintained that he had never had a professional relationship with Mr. Alashi and had been separately instructed by some of the judgment creditors.
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. This decision followed Mr. Gadzama's challenge to the LPDC's decision, which he argued was unconstitutional due to the lack of an effective appellate mechanism.
Mr. Gadzama had sued the Body of Benchers, the LPDC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, and Chris Alashi. His lawyers, led by Bolaji Ayorinde, also a SAN, argued that there was currently no effective statutory mechanism for him to appeal the LPDC decision. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi and a letter from the Body of Benchers, which confirmed that no Appeal Committee was in existence with appellate jurisdiction.
The dispute over the Zaki-Biam massacre litigation dates back to 2001, when the military operation resulted in 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. The Federal High Court awarded the plaintiffs N41.8 billion in damages in 2007, but the parties eventually reached an N8 billion settlement.
The LPDC's direction was based on its findings that Mr. Gadzama had poached and hijacked clients already represented by another lawyer, acted for some judgment creditors who later denied instructing him, and continued taking steps in the case after some of them had expressly disowned him. However, Mr. Gadzama's lawyers argued that the LPDC failed to establish his personal culpability and mishandled conflicting affidavit evidence.
The court's decision has significant implications for the legal profession in Nigeria, highlighting the need for an effective appellate mechanism for lawyers to challenge disciplinary decisions. The court's ruling also underscores the importance of ensuring that statutory bodies exercising public powers are subject to judicial review. Key points: The Federal High Court has declared the LPDC's decision to suspend Joe-Kyari Gadzama unconstitutional; The court barred the implementation and publication of the LPDC's decision; The decision was based on the lack of an effective appellate mechanism for Mr. Gadzama to challenge the LPDC's direction.
