Review
By Diana Omueza
Abuja, Aug. 26, 2026 Mr Joe Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), has expressed concern over fair hearing and judicial oversight in proceedings of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).
Gadzama raised the concern on Wednesday in Abuja following the Federal High Court’s grant of leave for him to challenge the disciplinary decision against him on constitutional grounds.
He said he had commenced proceedings at the court, seeking judicial review of the LPDC decision and directions and the disciplinary process involving legal practitioners and professional matters.
He said that the development brought before the court questions bordering on legality, constitutional validity and procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings involving legal practitioners and their professional rights generally.
He said his application challenged findings which resulted from improper evaluation of facts, evidence and applicable legal principles during the disciplinary proceedings against him.
Gadzama noted that his application also questioned the legal consequences of enforcing disciplinary directions where an affected legal practitioner allegedly had no effective and operational avenue for appellate review.
“The application referenced recent judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ben Mene-Ejegi, on the appropriate route for challenging decisions of the disciplinary body,” he said.
Gadzama pointed out that the current legal position of the LPDC against him could leave practitioners facing serious professional consequences without an effective mechanism for reviewing the merits and legality of disciplinary decisions.
He said his application raised broader questions concerning access to justice, fair hearing, judicial oversight and constitutional safeguards available to legal practitioners affected by disciplinary decisions and sanctions.
He added that the proceedings invited the Federal High Court to determine whether enforcement of disciplinary directions without effective appellate review is consistent with constitutional guarantee of fair hearing, natural justice and rule of law.
A document entitled “In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review between Joe Gadzama and the Body of Benchers and others”, challenged aspects of the proceedings against Gadzama, including the evaluation of evidence, procedural fairness, notice and reliance on collateral judicial observations and allegations.
“It further contended that the underlying dispute involved representation, retainership and professional fees between legal practitioners, rather than allegations that Gadzama defrauded or harmed any client.
“The document argued that the documentary evidence supporting Gadzama’s position was not properly evaluated, while conclusions were allegedly reached on matters requiring independent scrutiny and proof.
“Disciplinary powers must operate within the boundaries of fair hearing, due process and constitutional safeguards. No professional consequence should arise from a process beyond meaningful judicial scrutiny,” it said.
Gadzama said that the absence of an effective appellate mechanism could have significant implications for legal practitioners subjected to disciplinary decisions carrying serious professional and reputational consequences.
According to him, the issue is not merely about an individual practitioner; it concerns the integrity of disciplinary processes and the confidence practitioners and public must have in their fairness.
He noted that judicial oversight remained essential to ensuring disciplinary institutions exercised their powers lawfully, fairly and consistently with constitutional guarantees available to affected persons and practitioners nationwide.
“The rule of law requires that where a decision has serious consequences, there must be a meaningful avenue through which its legality, procedure and substance can be properly examined.
“The Federal High Court’s granting of leave allows the affected individual to proceed with the judicial review while preserving his rights to practise law as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
“The reliefs sought include orders concerning the legality of the LPDC decision and directions, findings against me, and constitutional questions surrounding enforcement of sanctions,” he said.
The legal practitioner said the application sought most significantly, consideration of the need for an effective and constitutionally compliant mechanism, through which disciplinary decisions could be subjected to meaningful review and scrutiny.
He reiterated his respect for the institutions of justice and maintained confidence in the Nigerian judicial system, while insisting that issues surrounding the LPDC decision were proper matters for judicial determination.
Gadzama said he would pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure the issues concerning him were examined in accordance with the constitution, principles of natural justice and the rule of law.
DOM/CEO
Edited by Chidi Opara
===================
(NAN)(NAN)
About the Author
