Court Nullifies LPDC’s 3-Year Suspension of Gadzama From Legal Practice

• The Federal High Court in Abuja has nullified the three-year suspension imposed on Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Joe-Kyari Gadzama, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), declaring the enforcement of the disciplinary decision unconstitutional.

• Justice Obiora Egwuatu barred the implementation, publication, transmission, or enforcement of the LPDC’s July 29, 2026 decision against Gadzama

• The court also restrained the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making any disciplinary notation against Gadzama pursuant to the LPDC decision and barred the publication or dissemination of the decision as a final disciplinary determination against him.

• Gadzama had challenged the suspension over allegations of professional misconduct arising from the long-running Zaki-Biam compensation dispute, insisting that the LPDC failed to establish his personal culpability.

September 29, () – The Federal High Court in Abuja has nullified the three-year suspension imposed on Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Joe-Kyari Gadzama, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), declaring the enforcement of the disciplinary decision unconstitutional.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu, in his judgment, barred the implementation, publication, transmission or enforcement of the LPDC’s July 29, 2026 direction against Gadzama.

The court’s decision followed Gadzama’s challenge to the disciplinary action which suspended him from legal practice for three years over allegations of professional misconduct arising from a long-running dispute connected to the Zaki-Biam massacre litigation.

According to a statement issued by Gadzama’s legal team, the court held that implementing or enforcing the LPDC direction in the absence of an effective appellate mechanism was inconsistent with Sections 36(1), 36(2) and 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution.

The court consequently declared such enforcement unconstitutional and unlawful. It also held that the LPDC lacked jurisdiction in the matter.

Justice Egwuatu further restrained the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making or causing to be made any disciplinary notation against Gadzama pursuant to the LPDC decision.

The court equally barred the publication or dissemination of the LPDC direction as a final disciplinary determination against the senior lawyer.

Gadzama Challenges Suspension

The judgment followed a suit filed by Gadzama against the Body of Benchers, the LPDC, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and Chris Alashi, following the disciplinary committee’s direction in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024.

The complaint was filed by Alashi against Ocha Ulegede and another person and arose from a dispute concerning the administration and distribution of compensation connected to litigation over the 2001 Zaki-Biam massacre.

The dispute involved competing claims over legal representation, instructions from judgment creditors and professional fees.

Gadzama had maintained that he never had a professional relationship with Alashi and never received instructions from him. He told the court that he was separately instructed by some of the judgment creditors involved in the case.

The disciplinary proceedings nevertheless resulted in the LPDC imposing a three-year suspension on Gadzama. The committee also suspended Ulegede from legal practice for two years.

Eight Grounds Against LPDC Decision

Gadzama had raised eight grounds in challenging the LPDC direction and sought an order of certiorari quashing the disciplinary decision.

His lawyers argued that there was no effective statutory mechanism through which the senior lawyer could appeal the LPDC decision.

The legal team relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi, delivered on June 26, as well as a letter from the Body of Benchers dated August 13, which they said confirmed that no Appeal Committee was in existence with appellate jurisdiction over the decision.

They consequently argued that there was presently no effective statutory appellate mechanism through which Gadzama could challenge the LPDC direction.

According to the lawyers, enforcing the decision as a final disciplinary determination in those circumstances raised fundamental constitutional questions under Sections 36(1) and 36(2)(b) of the Constitution.

They further argued that continued enforcement of the decision would effectively deprive Gadzama of a practical avenue to challenge the disciplinary findings against him.

One of the grounds raised by Gadzama concerned the LPDC’s finding that Exhibit JK2 was forged. The committee had noted that the document bore the signature of Zaki Kaduna Mazan dated May 22, 2015, although Mazan died on September 11, 2010.

Gadzama’s lawyers argued that the existence of a document bearing a signature dated after the purported signatory’s death did not establish that Gadzama forged the document, prepared it, or knew that it was forged.

They maintained that the LPDC failed to establish Gadzama’s personal culpability or sufficiently connect him to the alleged forgery.

The legal team also challenged findings that Gadzama poached or hijacked clients already represented by another lawyer.

They cited Rule 27(4) of the 2023 Rules in challenging the committee’s conclusions and also questioned its treatment of conflicting affidavit evidence involving Mbayemen Masewuan and Patrick Twar.

Background

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 subsequently sued the Federal Government over deaths, destruction of property and other losses arising from the operation.

The Federal High Court in 2007 awarded the plaintiffs N41.8 billion in damages.

The Federal Government appealed the judgment before the parties eventually reached an N8 billion settlement.

The settlement was subsequently adopted as a consent judgment by the Court of Appeal.

However, the dispute continued over the recovery and distribution of the money and the lawyers involved in the litigation.

Gadzama became involved in the dispute in 2015. He maintained that some of the judgment creditors had instructed him to challenge the N8 billion settlement and pursue recovery of the original N41.8 billion judgment.

Alashi, who later petitioned the LPDC, disputed Gadzama’s account.

Some of the judgment creditors also filed affidavits denying that they had instructed Gadzama to act on their behalf.

The dispute eventually reached the Court of Appeal, which rejected an attempt to set aside the N8 billion consent judgment and made observations concerning Gadzama’s conduct in the matter.

LPDC’s Findings

In its 70-page direction dated July 29, 2026, the LPDC found Gadzama guilty of professional misconduct.

The committee alleged that he poached and hijacked clients already represented by another lawyer, acted for some judgment creditors who subsequently denied instructing him, and continued taking steps in the case after some of them had expressly disowned him.

The LPDC also considered the disputed document and other evidence presented during the disciplinary proceedings before imposing the three-year suspension on Gadzama.

The committee relied in part on observations contained in the Court of Appeal judgment in reaching its disciplinary findings.

Gadzama subsequently approached the Federal High Court, challenging both the jurisdiction of the disciplinary committee and the legality of enforcing its decision without an effective appellate mechanism.

Court Halts Enforcement

Before the final judgment, Justice Egwuatu had granted Gadzama leave to seek judicial review and an order of certiorari to bring the LPDC direction before the Federal High Court.

The leave followed an ex parte application filed on August 19 by Gadzama through his legal team led by Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN.

In Monday’s judgment, the court granted the reliefs sought by Gadzama, effectively halting the implementation of the three-year suspension.

The court’s orders also prevent the disciplinary direction from being treated or circulated as a final disciplinary determination against him.

The ruling further protects Gadzama from having a disciplinary notation entered against him by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court on the basis of the LPDC decision.

A central issue in the case was whether a disciplinary sanction could be enforced as final when the affected lawyer had no effective statutory appellate platform to challenge it.

Gadzama’s lawyers argued that the Body of Benchers and LPDC are statutory bodies exercising public powers and are therefore subject to judicial review where their actions allegedly violate constitutional or legal requirements.

The Federal High Court’s judgment has now placed the enforcement of the LPDC’s disciplinary decision on hold and declared its enforcement against Gadzama, in the circumstances before the court, unconstitutional.