General Meeting, approved the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The suspension, announced pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is to remain in force pending the final determination of disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee.
While the LPPC asserts that the suspension is intended to “safeguard the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria”, this decision raises profound concerns about procedural propriety, jurisdictional overreach, and the prejudicial effect it portends for both the legal profession and the administration of justice. This article critically examines the hasty decision of the LPPC, its implications, and why it constitutes a premature verdict that undermines the very principles of natural justice the legal profession is sworn to uphold.
Chief Mike Ozekhome, a prominent constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, is currently facing disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. The proceedings relate to his involvement in a controversial property dispute in the United Kingdom concerning a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London. Chief Ozekhome is also standing trial before an FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on a 12-count charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
What is particularly significant and troubling is that the same issues before the LPPC are also pending before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of sanctioning legal practitioners for professional misconduct. The LPDC is yet to make any determination on the substantive allegations against chief Ozekhome. Yet, the LPPC has proceeded to impose a suspension that, in practical effect, constitutes a pre-determinative sanction.
The Distinct Jurisdictions of the LPPC and LPDC
To appreciate the gravity of the LPPC’s decision, it is essential to understand the distinct and separate roles of the LPPC and the LPDC under Nigerian law.
The LPPC is a statutory body established under Section 5 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its primary function is to consider and determine eligible applicants for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the LPPC is also empowered to make rules as to the privileges to be accorded to Senior Advocates of Nigeria. While the LPPC has disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers are ancillary to its primary function of conferring and regulating the rank.
The LPPC’s disciplinary authority is derived from its guidelines, including Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. However, this authority is limited to matters pertaining to the rank itself and the privileges associated with it.
The LPDC, by contrast, is a committee of the Body of Benchers established under Section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its mandate is far broader and more fundamental: it is the primary disciplinary body for all legal practitioners in Nigeria. The LPDC exercises jurisdiction over all lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar and is empowered to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and impose sanctions ranging from admonition to suspension and disbarment.
The Critical Distinction
The distinction between these two bodies is not merely academic, it is fundamental to the proper administration of justice in the legal profession. The LPPC is primarily a conferring and privilege-regulating body. The LPDC is the disciplinary body par excellence. While the LPPC may have incidental disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers cannot supplant or pre-empt the primary disciplinary jurisdiction of the LPDC.
When the same issues are pending before both bodies, as they are in chief Ozekhome’s case, the LPDC’s determination on professional misconduct must logically precede any disciplinary sanction from the LPPC. The LPPC cannot independently determine facts of professional misconduct that are the exclusive province of the LPDC.
The Hasty Decision: A Premature Verdict
The LPPC’s decision to suspend chief Ozekhome from the rank of SAN pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is, with respect, a hasty and premature verdict that suffers from several fundamental flaws.
Procedural Impropriety
First, the LPPC has effectively imposed a sanction; suspension from the rank of SAN before any determination of guilt by the competent disciplinary body. The LPDC, has not yet concluded its proceedings. The LPPC’s suspension thus presupposes a finding of misconduct that has not been established.
This is particularly concerning because the LPPC’s own Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee is still conducting proceedings. The suspension was imposed pendente lite. This is the very antithesis of the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Jurisdictional Overreach
Second, by suspending chief Ozekhome from the rank of SAN based on allegations that are also before the LPDC, the LPPC has effectively encroached upon the LPDC’s exclusive jurisdiction over professional misconduct. The LPDC is the body established to “consider and determine allegations of misbehaviour by persons whose names are on the Roll in their capacity as legal practitioners”. When the LPPC imposes a disciplinary sanction, even one characterized as a suspension of privileges based on the same facts pending before the LPDC, it usurps the LPDC’s role.
The LPPC’s action creates a parallel disciplinary process that competes with, and potentially prejudices, the LPDC’s proceedings. If the LPDC ultimately finds chief Ozekhome not guilty of professional misconduct, the LPPC’s suspension would have been entirely unjustified. If the LPDC finds him guilty, the LPPC’s suspension would have been premature and pre-emptive.
Violation of Natural Justice
Third, the suspension, imposed without a final determination of the allegations, violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. The maxim audi alteram partem requires that a person not be condemned without a fair hearing. By imposing a suspension before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the LPPC has effectively condemned chief Ozekhome without according him the full benefit of the disciplinary process. Natural justice requires that disciplinary proceedings be conducted fairly and that sanctions be imposed only after a proper determination of guilt. The LPPC’s suspension, imposed at the commencement rather than the conclusion of proceedings, subverts this principle.
The Prejudicial Effect of the Suspension
The LPPC’s hasty decision has far-reaching prejudicial effects that extend beyond Chief Ozekhome himself to the Legal profession, the administration of justice, and the LPDC’s proceedings.
Prejudice to Chief Ozekhome
The most immediate prejudice is to Chief Ozekhome personally. The rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria is the highest distinction conferred on legal practitioners in Nigeria. It is a title that signifies excellence, integrity, and distinction in the legal profession. Suspension from this rank even temporarily inflicts profound professional and reputational harm. The LPPC has directed chief Ozekhome to “refrain from parading himself, presenting himself, or otherwise holding himself out as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria pending the final determination of the disciplinary proceedings”. This effectively strips him of the privileges, recognition, and prestige associated with the rank of SAN before any determination of wrongdoing. The damage to his reputation, practice, and livelihood is incalculable and, in many respects, irreparable.
Prejudice to the Legal Profession
The suspension also prejudices the legal profession as a whole. The legal profession prides itself on adherence to the rule of law, due process, and fair hearing. When a body responsible for regulating the profession acts hastily and prematurely, it undermines public confidence in the profession’s commitment to these principles. Moreover, the LPPC’s action creates uncertainty about the proper procedures for disciplining SAN holders. If the LPPC can suspend a SAN holder based on unproven allegations pending before the LPDC, what safeguard exists against arbitrary and premature sanctions? The decision sets a dangerous precedent that could be invoked against other SAN holders in the future.
Prejudice to the Administration of Justice
The suspension also prejudices the administration of justice. Chief Ozekhome is currently standing trial before an FCT High Court on criminal charges. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. By imposing a disciplinary sanction based on the same facts before the criminal court, the LPPC has effectively undermined this presumption.
If a person can be stripped of professional honours based on allegations that have not been proven in any court or disciplinary tribunal, the presumption of innocence becomes meaningless. The LPPC’s decision sends the troubling message that professional sanctions can precede, and potentially influence, judicial determinations.
Prejudice to the LPDC’s Proceedings
Finally, the LPPC’s suspension prejudices the LPDC’s proceedings. The LPDC is tasked with independently investigating allegations and imposing sanctions. When the LPPC imposes a sanction even a provisional one based on the same facts, it creates a perception that the LPDC’s proceedings are merely confirmatory rather than determinative.
This perception undermines the LPDC’s independence and authority. It also creates practical difficulties: if the LPPC has already suspended chief Ozekhome from the SAN rank, what additional sanction can the LPDC impose if it finds him guilty? The LPPC’s pre-emptive action has effectively limited the LPDC’s sentencing options.
The Need for Restraint and Due Process
The LPPC’s decision, while perhaps well-intentioned, reflects a lack of restraint that is unbecoming of a body that should be a model of procedural propriety. The LPPC should have waited for the LPDC to conclude its proceedings before taking any disciplinary action against chief Ozekhome. If the LPDC found chief Ozekhome guilty of professional misconduct, the LPPC could then have considered whether suspension from the SAN rank was appropriate. If the LPDC found him not guilty, no suspension would have been necessary. By acting prematurely, the LPPC has put the cart before the horse.
The LPPC’s justification that the suspension is intended to “safeguard the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria” is insufficient. The integrity of the rank is better safeguarded by adherence to due process than by hasty, pre-emptive sanctions. A suspension imposed without a proper determination of guilt does not safeguard the rank’s integrity; it undermines it.
I will conclude by stating that the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria by the LPPC is a hasty decision that constitutes a premature verdict. The same issues are pending before the LPDC, the body statutorily charged with disciplining legal practitioners. The LPPC’s decision, imposed before any determination by the LPDC, violates principles of natural justice, constitutes jurisdictional overreach, and has far-reaching prejudicial effects.
The legal profession must not allow the desire to appear vigilant in disciplining errant members to override the fundamental principles of fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence. The LPPC should rescind its suspension and await the conclusion of the LPDC’s proceedings before taking any further action.
As the Supreme Court has consistently held, disciplinary proceedings must be conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The LPPC’s decision falls short of this standard. It is a reminder that even bodies entrusted with regulating the profession must be held accountable to the very principles they are meant to uphold.
The integrity of the rank of SAN and of the legal profession itself demands nothing less than full adherence to due process. Anything less is a disservice to the profession, to the public, and to the cause of justice.
