Court Bars Enforcement of J-K Gadzama SAN’s Three-Year LPDC Suspension

The Federal High Court in Abuja has declared the enforcement of the three-year suspension imposed on Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee unlawful in the circumstances surrounding the case, opening a significant new chapter in the developing law governing professional discipline and appeals in Nigeria’s legal profession.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu also restrained the implementation, publication, transmission and enforcement of the disciplinary direction against the Senior Advocate.

The court further restrained the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court from making a disciplinary notation against Gadzama on the strength of the LPDC direction and barred its dissemination as a final disciplinary determination. Premium Times Nigeria

The judgment arose from Gadzama’s challenge to the LPDC direction issued on July 29, 2026, in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024.

The underlying disciplinary dispute was connected with the administration and distribution of compensation arising from litigation involving victims of the Zaki-Biam military operation in Benue State and competing claims surrounding legal representation and professional fees.

Gadzama maintained that he had no professional relationship with the complainant, Chris Alashi, and had received separate instructions from some of the judgment creditors. The LPDC proceedings nevertheless culminated in a direction suspending Gadzama from legal practice for three years, while Ocha Ulegede was suspended for two years. Premium Times Nigeria

The appellate question

The central issue in Gadzama’s Federal High Court action went beyond the merits of the disciplinary complaint.

His legal team argued that there was presently no effective statutory appellate mechanism through which he could challenge the LPDC decision.

That argument followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi v. Nigerian Bar Association & LPDC, which altered the previously understood route for appeals from the disciplinary body.

LegalLinkz had earlier reported that the Supreme Court, by a five-to-two majority, held that LPDC decisions could not proceed directly to the Supreme Court under Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act, with the majority holding that the constitutional appellate structure could not be enlarged in that manner by ordinary legislation. Nigerian Law Updates

Gadzama’s lawyers also relied on an August 13 communication from the Body of Benchers which, according to their case, indicated that an appeal committee exercising the relevant appellate jurisdiction was not then in existence.

Justice Egwuatu consequently held, according to the account of the judgment released by Gadzama’s legal team, that enforcement of 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 and was therefore unconstitutional and unlawful.

The court was also reported to have held that the LPDC lacked jurisdiction in the particular matter. Premium Times Nigeria

The ruling is particularly significant because it comes while the legal profession is addressing the institutional consequences of the Supreme Court judgment on LPDC appeals.

The Body of Benchers recently constituted an ad hoc committee, including NBA President Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, to examine questions arising from the changed appellate structure. Nigerian Law Updates

The judgment therefore raises a broader regulatory question: how disciplinary decisions against legal practitioners should be enforced where the practitioner has a constitutional right to challenge the decision but the practical appellate machinery is disputed or unavailable.

The decision does not erase the wider importance of professional discipline. It instead places renewed attention on the need for disciplinary enforcement to operate together with an effective review and appellate process.