Gadzama, SAN, Sues Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee Over Three-Year Suspension

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Joe Kyari Gadzama, has sued the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) at the Federal High Court Abuja, challenging the three-year suspension imposed on him over alleged professional misconduct.

Gadzama commenced judicial review proceedings after the LPDC found him guilty of professional misconduct in connection with a long-running dispute over compensation for victims of the 2001 Zaki-Biam military operation in Benue State.

The Federal High Court Abuja has granted Gadzama leave to pursue the judicial review proceedings, paving the way for the court to consider questions surrounding the legality, constitutional validity and procedural fairness of the disciplinary process.

The LPDC had suspended Gadzama for three years after finding him guilty of professional misconduct in the dispute.

It was allegedly found that Gadzama 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.

Gadzama is challenging the findings and the process through which they were reached, maintaining that the facts, evidence and applicable legal principles were not properly evaluated.

His judicial review application places the matter before the Federal High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction and raises broader questions concerning the exercise of disciplinary powers against legal practitioners.

At the centre of the application is the question: “How should a disciplinary decision be reviewed where the existing legal framework does not presently provide the affected legal practitioner with an effective and operational appellate route?”

The application draws attention to the legal consequences of recent judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court’s decision in the matter of Ben Mene-Ejegi, which clarified the route through which decisions of the disciplinary body may be challenged.

According to the application, while an LPDC disciplinary decision may have serious and immediate consequences for a legal practitioner, there is presently no effective operational appellate mechanism through which the merits and legality of such a decision can be reviewed.

Gadzama’s challenge consequently raises issues concerning access to justice, fair hearing, judicial oversight and the constitutional safeguards available to persons affected by disciplinary decisions.

The application also challenges the manner in which the proceedings and findings against Gadzama were conducted, including questions concerning the evaluation of evidence, procedural fairness, notice, reliance on collateral judicial observations and allegations that were not independently established through the disciplinary process.

It argues that important documentary evidence supporting Gadzama’s position was not properly evaluated and that serious conclusions were reached based on matters that, according to his case, required independent scrutiny and proof.

The proceedings invite the Federal High Court Abuja to determine whether the enforcement of disciplinary directions without an effective avenue for appellate review is consistent with constitutional guarantees of fair hearing, natural justice and the rule of law.

The case also raises broader questions about the safeguards that should accompany the exercise of disciplinary powers, particularly where the consequences for a legal practitioner include suspension from professional practice.

The granting of leave by the Federal High Court allows Gadzama to proceed with his judicial review application while preserving his rights to practise law as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

Among the reliefs being pursued are orders relating to the legality of the LPDC’s disciplinary decision and directions, the findings made against him and the constitutional validity of enforcing disciplinary sanctions in the absence of an effective appellate mechanism.

Gadzama has reiterated his respect for the institutions of justice and confidence in the Nigerian judicial system, maintaining that the questions surrounding the LPDC decision are proper matters for judicial determination.

He has therefore elected to pursue every lawful avenue available to him to ensure that the issues are examined in accordance with the Constitution, the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.

[SaharaReporters]