The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has suspended Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, from legal practice for three years, after finding him guilty of poaching and hijacking clients already represented by another lawyer, relying on a forged authority document, and pursuing a judgement sum after the parties had already settled the matter.
In a 70-page direction dated 29th July, 2026, the Committee also suspended another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, for two years over related professional misconduct arising from the same dispute — a long-running battle over compensation for victims of the 2001 Zaki-Biam military operation in Benue State.
Background to the Dispute
The military operation followed the killing of 19 soldiers by suspected Tiv militia members, prompting a retaliatory invasion of communities in Logo, Ukum, Kwande, and Katsina-Ala Local Government Areas. Survivors and families of the deceased subsequently sued the Federal Government, and in July 2007, the Federal High Court awarded them approximately N41.8 billion in damages. Following an appeal, the parties negotiated an N8 billion settlement, which the Court of Appeal adopted as a consent judgement.
Disputes later arose over who had authority to represent the judgement creditors, how the settlement should be distributed, and what fees were owed to the lawyers involved — culminating in a petition by lawyer Chris Alashi, alleging that Messrs Gadzama and Ulegede interfered with his representation of some of the judgement creditors.
Findings Against Gadzama
The LPDC found that Gadzama became involved in the matter in 2015, claiming to have been instructed by some judgement creditors to challenge the N8 billion settlement and pursue the original N41.8 billion judgement.
However, several of those named as his clients later denied instructing him, with one, Azenda Igo, stating he was “thoroughly shocked” to discover a court process filed on his behalf.
Another judgement creditor, Mbayemen Masewuan, alleged she was taken to Gadzama’s Abuja office and persuaded to abandon her lawyers, with officials of the Benue Development Movement telling her that Gadzama was “a big and powerful lawyer” while her own lawyers “lacked the knowledge and competence” to recover the funds. She further alleged Gadzama offered her N20,000 monthly to leave her lawyers.
The Committee rejected Gadzama’s denial of poaching, stating: “The above clearly reveals a case of poaching and hijack of clients, an act unbecoming of a legal practitioner.”
The Forged Authority Document
Central to the case was Exhibit JK2, a document dated 22nd May, 2015, which Gadzama relied on as authority to act. The LPDC found that one purported signatory, Zaki Kaduna Mazan, had died on 11th September, 2010 — nearly five years before the document was signed. The Committee relied on an earlier Court of Appeal finding, reported as Orngu & Ors v. Gaadi & Ors (2016), which had already declared the document forged and criticised Gadzama’s “despicable role” in the matter, noting he had proceeded despite disclaimers and committed a “patent breach” of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Committee also found that Gadzama pursued the original N41.8 billion judgement — filing Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2015 — and sought to set aside the N8 billion consent judgement without proper instruction, and that he continued pursuing a Supreme Court appeal (SC/214/2017) even after the judgement creditors formally withdrew it, insisting: “This appeal was filed without our authority.”
Allegation Not Upheld
The Committee declined to find that Gadzama exerted undue influence over Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court regarding disbursement of the judgement funds, though it described the trial court’s handling of the matter as “strange” and inconsistent with the Court of Appeal’s position.
Gadzama’s Defence
Gadzama denied all allegations, maintaining he was properly briefed by some judgement creditors in 2015, including Peter Orngu, Mbakesen Ayatse, and Andrew Juntu, and that the Notices of Change of Counsel relied upon by Alashi were never brought to his attention. He also denied receiving N800 million in fees that should have accrued to Alashi, insisting his fees were duly approved by his clients.
LPDC’s Verdict and Orders
The Committee held Gadzama liable for breaching Rules 1, 27(1), and 29(1)(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023 — covering conduct unbecoming of a legal practitioner, good faith dealings with fellow lawyers, and the duty to ensure a predecessor counsel is paid earned fees.
He was accordingly suspended from the Roll of Legal Practitioners for three years, with the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court directed to effect the suspension. The Committee declined jurisdiction over Alashi’s claim for professional fees, directing that it be pursued before the regular courts.
Ulegede’s two-year suspension arose separately from findings that he filed suits seeking N6.1 billion from the settlement after the N8 billion arrangement had already been reached — conduct the Committee found exhibited a “lack of good faith.”
The direction was signed by Umeh Kalu, SAN (Presiding Member), alongside Justice Halima Abdulmalik, Justice Halima Mohammed, Garba Tetengi, SAN, and Solomon Umoh, SAN.
Gadzama Appeals to Supreme Court
Rejecting the LPDC’s findings, Gadzama has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, describing the allegations as unfounded and maintaining that he was directly retained by some judgement creditors. He expressed confidence that the apex court would arrive at a just determination upon reviewing the matter.
