NBA, AGF, benchers urged to resolve LPDC appeal uncertainty

A legal practitioner, Emmanuel Umohinyang, has called on the Nigerian Bar Association, the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Body of Benchers to urgently establish a constitutionally valid appellate mechanism for challenging decisions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

Umohinyang warned that the absence of a clearly defined appeal process could undermine the rights of legal practitioners, create uncertainty in disciplinary proceedings and erode public confidence in the regulation of the legal profession.

In separate letters dated October 22, 2026, to the leadership of the three institutions, the Head of Chambers at Emmanuel Umohinyang Chambers sought coordinated constitutional, legislative and institutional reforms following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi v. Nigerian Bar Association and Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee and the subsequent Federal High Court judgment in Gadzama v Body of Benchers and Others.

The Supreme Court, by a majority of five to two, held that Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it conferred jurisdiction on the apex court to entertain direct appeals against LPDC directions.

The decision raised questions about the appropriate appellate forum for lawyers dissatisfied with disciplinary decisions.

In his letter to the NBA President, Umohinyang said, “The LPDC must retain the ability to investigate and determine allegations of professional misconduct, but a disciplinary direction should operate within a framework that provides an effective means of valid appeal.”

He warned that the uncertainty could affect practitioners, complainants and the public.

“Where the available appellate route is constitutionally defective or practically inaccessible, practitioners face uncertainty about their rights, complainants face uncertainty about finality, and the public may lose confidence in the disciplinary process,” he stated.

He also highlighted the Federal High Court’s decision concerning the three-year suspension imposed on Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, by the LPDC.

According to Umohinyang, the court restrained the enforcement, publication and transmission of the disciplinary direction in the absence of an effective appellate avenue.

He said the judgments had exposed an institutional problem that required coordinated action rather than fragmented administrative responses.

“In my respectful view, the NBA is particularly well placed to facilitate a constructive response through its professional leadership, policy advocacy and engagement with the relevant institutions,” he wrote.

The lawyer urged the NBA to establish a specialised legal reform committee comprising constitutional and appellate practitioners, disciplinary experts and other relevant stakeholders to examine the judgments and recommend a constitutionally sustainable appeal framework.

He also proposed consultations involving the NBA, Body of Benchers, AGF and National Assembly to develop legislation specifying the appellate forum, grounds of appeal, procedural requirements, time limits, available remedies and rules governing enforcement pending appeal.

In his separate letter to the Body of Benchers, Umohinyang called for an urgent examination of the statutory status of its Appeal Committee and the legal steps required to establish an effective appellate mechanism.

Related News

• PDP crisis: Appeal court rejects recognition of interim NWC
• NBA chairmen petition Adeleke over dilapidated Osun court buildings
• NBA seeks additional legal officers for Amotekun

He requested a formal legal opinion on whether the committee could lawfully be constituted under existing legislation or whether amendments would be necessary.

“The objective is not to interfere with the LPDC’s legitimate disciplinary authority or to frustrate the determination of professional misconduct. It is to ensure that such authority operates within a framework that is legally effective, procedurally fair and consistent with constitutional guarantees,” he stated.

He added that a disciplinary direction that could not be effectively challenged risked creating uncertainty for practitioners, complainants, the Body of Benchers and the legal profession.

Umohinyang further urged the Body of Benchers to review procedures governing the communication, service and enforcement of disciplinary directions while consultations on a permanent appellate framework continued.

However, he cautioned that temporary administrative arrangements should not be treated as substitutes for a legally valid appeal.

In his letter to the AGF and Minister of Justice, the lawyer sought a comprehensive constitutional and legislative review of Sections 233 and 240 of the Constitution, Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act and the effect of the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994.

He urged the AGF’s office to determine whether an effective appeal route could be established through ordinary legislation or whether a constitutional amendment would be required.

The proposed reforms, he said, should address appellate jurisdiction, enforcement pending appeal, interim relief, expedited determination and transitional arrangements for disciplinary cases already decided.

Umohinyang also recommended safeguards against actual or apparent bias and transparent procedures for constituting appellate panels.

“The proposed review would provide an opportunity to address the present uncertainty through a coherent framework rather than piecemeal administrative responses,” he wrote.

He said the reforms would “help ensure that future LPDC directions are subject to an effective and legally sustainable review process, reducing the risk of avoidable litigation over jurisdiction and enforcement.”

The lawyer called on the three institutions to initiate consultations and develop a common legislative response that would preserve the LPDC’s disciplinary authority while guaranteeing practitioners effective judicial redress.

“A clear appellate framework would protect the rights of practitioners and complainants, preserve the authority of the LPDC and ensure that disciplinary decisions are capable of withstanding lawful scrutiny,” he stated.