The court ruling blocking enforcement of the three-year suspension imposed on Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joe-Kyari Gadzama, has drawn fresh scrutiny, with legal writer Abubakar D. Sani questioning part of the constitutional reasoning behind the decision.
In a commentary published by TheNigeriaLawyer on October 14, 2026, Sani supported the relief granted to Gadzama but argued that the Federal High Court’s reliance on Section 36(2) of the Constitution raised questions deserving closer examination. His intervention renews discussion of the judgment delivered on September 28, rather than announcing a new court decision. thenigerialawyer.com
Justice Obiora Atuegwu Egwuatu of the Federal High Court in Abuja had restrained enforcement of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee’s direction against Gadzama in the absence of an effective avenue of appeal.
The judgment arose from suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026, brought by Gadzama against the Body of Benchers and four other respondents. According to the published judgment report, the court held that enforcing the disciplinary direction without an effective appellate mechanism was incompatible with constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and judicial power. It restrained implementation until an avenue of appeal was provided.
The underlying dispute concerned legal representation and professional fees arising from the Zaki-Biam compensation litigation. The LPDC issued its disciplinary direction on July 29, 2026.
Gadzama challenged the decision, maintaining that he had no professional relationship with the complainant, Chris Alashi, and had not received instructions from him. His position was that some judgment creditors had separately engaged his services.
Reporting on the September judgment, Premium Times stated that the court also barred implementation, publication, transmission or enforcement of the direction against Gadzama, subject to the establishment of an effective appellate platform. www.premiumtimesng.com
In his latest analysis, Sani argued that judicial review provided a necessary route for challenging a disciplinary decision where the ordinary appeal arrangements were unavailable. However, he questioned the court’s interpretation of Section 36(2)(b), referring to earlier Supreme Court authority on the provision.
His central position was that the court reached the correct outcome, although part of its reasoning was, in his view, unnecessary. That criticism remains a commentator’s assessment; it does not amount to a subsequent judgment setting aside the relief granted to Gadzama.
Related news
- Court Bars Enforcement of J-K Gadzama SAN’s Three-Year LPDC Suspension
- The Case of J-K Gadzama, SAN v. Body of Benchers and Others Presents a Deeper Meaning to Fair Hearing
- Fagbemi Calls for Faster Lawyer Disciplinary Cases
behind Games Village, Abuja
5A, CGH, Games Village, Abuja