By Stephen Simon
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, has secured leave of the Federal High Court in Abuja to challenge his three-year suspension from legal practice by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.
Justice Obiora-Atuegwu Egwuatu granted Gadzama permission to seek judicial review of the LPDC’s July 29, 2026, decision and pursue an order of certiorari to quash the disciplinary direction. The court directed him to file his substantive application within seven days.
The matter, filed as Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026, is expected to come up for hearing on September 4, subject to service of the relevant processes on the respondents.
Gadzama’s challenge arose from the LPDC’s decision to suspend him for three years after finding him guilty of professional misconduct in connection with a long-running dispute over compensation for victims of the 2001 military operation in Zaki-Biam, Benue State.
The disciplinary committee had also suspended another lawyer, Ocha P. Ulegede, for two years over the same dispute. The LPDC’s 70-page direction found Gadzama guilty under relevant provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023.
The dispute centred on the representation of judgment creditors and the recovery and distribution of compensation arising from litigation connected to the Zaki-Biam military operation. The original Federal High Court judgments amounted to N41.8 billion before negotiations eventually produced an N8 billion settlement.
The LPDC had alleged, among other things, that Gadzama took over clients already represented by another lawyer and continued acting for some judgment creditors despite questions over their instructions. Gadzama has rejected the allegations, maintaining that he was properly retained by the judgment creditors and acted in accordance with his professional instructions.
A central issue in his Federal High Court challenge is the absence of what his lawyers describe as an effective statutory appellate mechanism for challenging the LPDC decision. His application argues that enforcement of the disciplinary direction in such circumstances raises constitutional questions concerning fair hearing, natural justice and the rule of law.
However, the court’s decision to grant leave does not mean that Gadzama has won the case or that the LPDC’s suspension has been quashed. It merely permits him to bring the substantive judicial review challenge before the Federal High Court. The court will now have to consider the legal arguments and evidence surrounding the disciplinary decision.
The development therefore opens a fresh chapter in the high-profile disciplinary dispute and puts the legality and procedural foundation of the LPDC’s decision before the Federal High Court.
