-
Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee suspends Senior Advocate of Nigeria Joe-Kyari Gadzama for three years over professional misconduct linked to the controversial Zaki Biam compensation case.
-
Gadzama rejects the verdict, announces immediate appeal to the Supreme Court and insists the disciplinary order is automatically stayed once the appeal is filed under the Legal Practitioners Act.
-
Another lawyer, Ocha P. Ulegede, receives a two-year suspension as the LPDC orders the Supreme Court Registrar and Inspector-General of Police to be notified of its decision.
-
SAN maintains he was lawfully retained by the judgment creditors, denies allegations of client solicitation and wrongful appropriation of legal fees, and expresses confidence that the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.
July 30, (THEWILL) — The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has suspended one of Nigeria’s leading Senior Advocates, Joe-Kyari Gadzama, from legal practice for three years over findings of professional misconduct arising from the handling of compensation awarded to victims of the 2001 Zaki Biam military operation in Benue State.
However, in a swift pushback against the ruling, Gadzama rejected the committee’s decision, describing it as legally unsustainable and unsupported by the evidence before the panel. He disclosed that he had already directed his legal team to file an appeal before the Supreme Court, insisting that the disciplinary sanction cannot take effect once the appeal is properly entered.
The LPDC also suspended another legal practitioner, Ocha P. Ulegede, from legal practice for two years over his role in the same matter.
The sanctions followed a petition filed by legal practitioner Chris Alashi, which accused the two lawyers of professional misconduct in relation to the disputed settlement of compensation awarded to victims of the military invasion of Zaki Biam and surrounding communities.
In its ruling delivered on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, Justice Halima Ibrahim, who presided over the committee, held that both lawyers breached provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023.
The committee ordered that Gadzama’s three-year suspension and Ulegede’s two-year suspension take immediate effect. It further directed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to circulate the disciplinary decision to the heads of all superior courts of record across the federation, while the Inspector-General of Police is to be formally notified of the sanctions.
Gadzama Challenges Verdict
Responding to the ruling in a statement made available to THEWILL, Gadzama disclosed that although he was yet to obtain the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the LPDC’s decision in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024, he had already instructed his lawyers to file a notice of appeal without delay.
The senior advocate argued that the committee’s directive cannot be enforced once an appeal is filed within the time prescribed by law.
Relying on Section 11(8)(a) of the Legal Practitioners Act, Gadzama stated that filing an appeal automatically stays the LPDC’s direction pending the final determination of the matter by the Supreme Court.
“I wish to reassure my clients, colleagues, friends and the general public that, upon the filing of the appeal within the time prescribed by law, my right to practise as a legal practitioner remains unaffected pending the final determination of the appeal”, he said.
The senior lawyer stressed that while he holds the institutions regulating the legal profession in the highest esteem, he respectfully disagrees with the findings reached by the LPDC.
According to him, the committee’s conclusions were neither supported by the documentary evidence tendered during the proceedings nor by the applicable law.
Gadzama said the petition against him accused him of improperly taking over another lawyer’s brief, soliciting clients and wrongfully appropriating professional fees.
He rejected the allegations in their entirety, maintaining that he was directly retained by the judgment creditors through written letters of instruction and acted strictly within the scope of that professional engagement.
“The complaint against me alleged that I improperly took over another lawyer’s brief, solicited clients and wrongfully appropriated professional fees. Those allegations are, with respect, unfounded. I was retained directly by the judgment creditors through written letters of instruction and acted throughout strictly in accordance with that professional retainer. In my respectful view, the documentary evidence before the Committee does not support the findings made against me”, he stated.
He further argued that the disagreement essentially related to legal representation and professional fees, issues which, in his view, ought not to have formed the basis of disciplinary proceedings.
Expressing confidence in Nigeria’s judicial system, Gadzama said he believes the Supreme Court will impartially examine both the legal and factual issues raised in the appeal and ultimately set aside the committee’s decision.
The SAN also thanked colleagues, clients, friends and members of the public for their messages of solidarity and prayers following the LPDC’s ruling, while reaffirming his commitment to the legal profession, the administration of justice and the highest ethical standards.
“I trust in the judicial process and remain confident that justice will ultimately prevail”, he added.
Background to the Dispute
The disciplinary proceedings arose from the prolonged dispute over compensation awarded to victims of the October 2001 military operation in Zaki Biam and neighbouring communities in Benue State.
The military crackdown followed the killing of 19 soldiers in the area and reportedly claimed the lives of hundreds of civilians, while homes, businesses and other property were destroyed during the operation.
Survivors and other affected residents subsequently instituted a suit before the Federal High Court in Enugu, alleging gross violations of their fundamental human rights and seeking compensation for the destruction caused by the military operation.
In July 2007, the court awarded the claimants N41.8 billion in damages against the Federal Government.
Although the Federal Government initially appealed the judgment, both parties later entered negotiations and agreed to reduce the compensation to N8 billion as part of an out-of-court settlement.
The settlement subsequently became the subject of controversy after plans emerged for the compensation to be paid through the Benue State Government under the administration of former Governor Gabriel Suswam.
The judgment creditors and some members of their legal team opposed the arrangement, insisting that the Benue State Government was not a party to the litigation and therefore had no legal authority to receive or distribute the funds on behalf of the beneficiaries.
They also maintained that the proposed payment structure had not received the endorsement of the court and argued that the compensation should be paid directly to the successful claimants in accordance with the judgment.
The disagreement over the implementation of the settlement triggered years of litigation, competing claims over legal representation, disputes over professional fees and multiple petitions, eventually culminating in the LPDC’s disciplinary proceedings and sanctions against Gadzama and Ulegede.
With Gadzama now heading to the Supreme Court, the case is expected to test the scope of the LPDC’s disciplinary powers and the interpretation of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act governing appeals against decisions of the committee.
Felix Ifijeh is a journalist with years of professional reporting experience. Known for his keen news sense, compelling storytelling and commitment to accurate, impactful reporting, he has built a reputation for turning leads into clear, engaging, and well-structured reports that resonate with readers. His work reflects deep newsroom experience and a commitment to accurate, impactful journalism.
