Portrait supplied by the author
Earlier this morning on Facebook, I came across the headline that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) had suspended a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) for three years.
It was not the first time I had seen the LPDC suspend a legal practitioner or even direct that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria be stripped of the privileges attached to the rank of SAN. However, this particular case caught my attention because it involved J-K Gadzama, OFR, SAN, one of Nigeria's most prominent legal practitioners. He is widely recognized for his work in litigation, arbitration, corporate law, and legal education.
According to the reports, the LPDC directed the three-year suspension of J-K Gadzama, SAN, from legal practice over findings of professional misconduct arising from the handling of legal representation and professional fees connected with the Zaki Biam compensation case. Another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, was also suspended for two years.
Following the LPDC's direction, Gadzama rejected the decision, describing the findings as unsupported by the documentary evidence. He announced that he had instructed his legal team to file an immediate appeal, relying on Section 11(8)(a) of the Legal Practitioners Act, while maintaining that the filing of the appeal prevents the suspension from taking effect pending the determination of the appeal.
From his statement released earlier today, it appears that Gadzama intends to file his appeal directly before the Supreme Court.
That announcement did not surprise me. Almost immediately, it sparked intense legal debate across social media among lawyers, law students, and legal commentators.
Many commentators argued that, in light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Aladejobi v. Nigerian Bar Association (2013) LPELR-SC.121/2011, Osuji v. LPDC (2025) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2014) 317, and the Supreme Court's subsequent refusal in March 2026 to review its position, a direct appeal from the LPDC to the Supreme Court may no longer be procedurally competent.
Interestingly, this was not always the law. In Okike v. LPDC (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt. 949) 471, the Supreme Court held that appeals from the LPDC could lie directly to the Supreme Court. However, that position was later departed from in Aladejobi v. NBA, where the Court held that the proper route of appeal is through the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers.
In reaching that conclusion, the Supreme Court, per John Afolabi Fabiyi, JSC, stated:
"On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that from the decision of this court in Okike v. LPDC (supra) appeal from the direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee lies directly to this court. I dare say that that issue of jurisdiction of this court was not remotely raised therein. The applicable sections of the law were not considered and pronounced upon in the lead judgment therein. With due diffidence, the opinion was given per incuriam and cannot stand the test of time in the face of the applicable law earlier on discussed in this judgment."
The Court consequently held that Okike v. LPDC was decided per incuriam and unanimously upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the failure to first appeal to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.
As a law student who is always curious about legal developments, I found the debate fascinating. The major submission of many legal commentators is that a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
However, there is a much bigger issue.
There is an institutional vacuum.
Such a vacuum may offend fundamental principles of the rule of law, particularly:
Ubi jus ibi remedium, where there is a right, there must be a remedy.
The constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), since a person should not be deprived of a lawful avenue to challenge a disciplinary decision.
Many commentators, particularly Bolaji Oluwatosin, in his write-up published today, opined that in such circumstances:
"The only coherent course open to an aggrieved practitioner is to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for an order of mandamus compelling the Body of Benchers to perform its statutory duty without further delay."
After reading his write-up, one question immediately came to my mind:
Is mandamus automatic?
I do not think so….
Not necessarily. The applicant must establish that:
The duty is mandatory, not merely discretionary.
The applicant has a sufficient legal interest.
There has been a failure or refusal to perform the duty.
There is no equally effective alternative remedy.
The more difficult question is this:
What happens pending the constitution of the Appeal Committee?
If the Supreme Court has now consistently held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the LPDC, yet the Appeal Committee has not been constituted, where does an aggrieved legal practitioner go?
One possible answer is that such a practitioner may first have to seek an order of mandamus compelling the Body of Benchers to constitute the Appeal Committee before pursuing the statutory appeal.
As many legal commentators have observed, this issue is likely to generate further litigation unless the Body of Benchers promptly constitutes the Appeal Committee or the National Assembly amends the Legal Practitioners Act to address this obvious gap.
To me, the argument advanced by Bolaji Oluwatosin appears legally tenable, provided that Sections 11(7) and 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act indeed impose a mandatory duty on the Body of Benchers to constitute the Appeal Committee. It is certainly one of the strongest public law responses to the current institutional vacuum.
But beyond the J-K Gadzama case, many other disciplinary matters may also be affected by the non-existence of the Appeal Committee.
What then is the fate of those cases?
These are certainly interesting times for the Nigerian legal profession, and I believe this issue will continue to generate important legal debates and litigation in the months ahead.
How do you see this issue?
Let's continue the conversation in the comment section.
● Umar Sanusi Garba Kalambaina
Law Student, Faculty of Law, Northwest University, Sokoto.
He can be reach through 0808 115 3649 or talk2umarsgk@gmail.com
Author’s views are published for discussion and do not necessarily represent the views of Innovative Bar. Readers should consult the primary legal materials and obtain professional advice where appropriate.
About the Author
