The LPDC Quagmire: Why the Court of Appeal Has Appellate Jurisdiction -By Nnamdi Clinton
The legal profession is one of the oldest professions in the world. It is a profession with rubrics built around nobility. The institution of dispute resolution which the legal profession embodies is quite a traditional one in history. Well before the year 67 BC, a systematic adjudicatory system existed. At those times, no formal education in law was required as qualification for representing the interests of litigants in civil matters, or accused persons in criminal matters. Oratory was the test skill; and the training was by way of personal apprenticeship or rhetoric study. Those who possessed oratorical skills flourished as good advocates. It was in this historic era the likes of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) and Quintus Hortensius Hortalus blossomed. This placed them in exalted positions in society. Citizens trusted their judgments, confided in them, and looked at them as noble men.
In a typical traditional African setting, those who presided over matters, and those who made representations on behalf of others were regarded as wise members of the family or society. The idea has always been that anyone who mastered rhetoric and could represent aggrieved parties earned a high place in society. This traditional system gave way for a more formalized system of legal education and adjudication beginning from Rome in about the 11th -12th centuries. Awards of formal degrees in law as qualifications for being advocates is reported to have commenced around the 11th century in Bologna Italy. It was, at the time, a profession of the royals. Thus was the idea that birthed the nobility of the legal profession.
Writing on a lawyer’s noble call of duty, Mr. Adetokunbo Omoregie Okeaya-Inneh, SAN said at pages ix-x of his book, Some Defining Cases, that, “I think I should emphasise, that the work of a court going lawyer is more than just a business. It is in many respects a vocation. You are a clergyman of some sort, an adviser or advisor whose work does not really end even long after you may have concluded and put away a file. It can be tedious, exhilarating, fascinating, frustrating and fulfilling; combining the negative and positive in equal measure. It is however a noble calling laced with inherent trust. You are a fiduciary of a special flavour. It is a profession where reputation is a sine qua non. The reputation is gained over time, acquired through incredible dint of hard work and experience. It is important to be exceptional academically, but it is forgiving of the average mind. All will prosper that apply themselves to the fundamental principles of duty, responsibility, and hard work.” Such is the expectation that inheres in the legal profession!
CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE BELOW AFTER THESE IMPORTANT NOTICES
Log in to primsol.lawpavilion.com and store.lawpavilion.com to enjoy the best E-journals, textbooks, and many more. For further enquiries/assistance, send an email to customercare@lawpavilion.com or call 08050298729
The Court of Appeal in Bedding Holding Ltd v. Carew (2025) LPELR-81647 (CA) admonished that, “The confidence bestowed on the lawyer is rooted in honour. The presumption is that every lawyer is an honourable man and being honourable, the client is able to trust him with his money, documents, life secrets and even life.” This duty call has been grossly abused by both the broader bar and those at the premiership league table of the profession. In fact, the Supreme Court has had occasion to warn that, “No lawyer should behave in the manner in which the respondent has conducted himself here no matter what his motivation or inducement is, in this case- greed and or rapacity. Such a conduct can therefore not be condoned and will not be condoned by this Body.” N.B.A. v. Ntiero (2013) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1386) 431.
The Rising Cases of Professional misconduct in Nigeria’s legal profession.
The times appear past when headlines making cases of professional misconduct related to members of the outer bar. It was then believed that, the profession had a way of shielding very senior lawyers from facing disciplinary action. Events of recent time have shown that the legal profession is beginning to realize the debilitating effect of professional misconduct, thus the need to apply with equal measure, the rules relating to professional misconduct. Despite the consequences of reported cases tried up to the Supreme Court, the upsurge of these cases drains the vitality of the sanctions meted out.
As of the last count, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has concluded the hearing and sanction of over 17 lawyers between 2025/2026 alone. What is however, most exciting in the approach of the LPDC is its application of disciplinary rules to all lawyers in equal measure, and without fear or favour.
Perhaps, the earliest and most profound decision of the Court in Nigeria relating to sanctioning a lawyer for unprofessional conduct is the case of R. v. Abuah (1961) All NLR 635. A lawyer, known and referred to as Mr. Chukwuemeka Abuah, had procured for himself funds relating to a judgment sum in the court’s registry by falsely representing the authority of his client. He was convicted under the criminal code for obtaining money by false pretence. Consequently, the Federal Supreme Court ordered his name to be struck off the role of legal practitioners in Nigeria. Ever since this case, reports of acts of professional misconduct in the legal professional has gained considerable momentum.
The situation has taken on an entirely new dimension. Nigerian lawyers in the Diaspora are not exempt from this image-damaging misadventure. Arguably one of the largest blogging platform for lawyers’ events, stories and Essays, BarristerNG.Com reported on the 17th of September, 2026 as follows: “[FULL LIST] 17 Nigerian Lawyers Disbarred, Suspended in US Over Fraud, Client Funds, Illegal Practice.” This is rather consternating, how Nigerian lawyers have gone global now! These reports not only smear Nigeria’s image, they strike at the core of the values the legal profession upholds.
The Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee vs the Supreme Court: Understanding the jurisdictional dichotomy.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria is a creation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the grundnorm. Section 230 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), established the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act, CAP L11, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 established the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee as a Committee of the Body of Benchers and charged it with the duty of considering and determining alleged cases of misbehavior among lawyers especially in their capacity as such professionals.
The two regulatory bodies appear to have powers to discipline legal practitioners. Pursuant to sections 12 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary committee has general disciplinary powers in respect of infamous conducts in any professional respect. This general power seems to accommodate powers to discipline lawyers who have been found guilty of other offenses under the general penal statutes, impropriety in dealing with clients’ properties, and other broader professional misconduct. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has a specific disciplinary responsibility, it has powers to discipline lawyers found to be guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect with regard to any matter of which the court or any other court of record in Nigeria is or has been seized. See, Section 13 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act. Simply, the Supreme Court has disciplinary jurisdiction that is narrowed specifically to court-going lawyers.
Meanwhile, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has general jurisdiction covering lawyers in every field of practice, including corporate practice, real estate, and politics, insofar as the conduct complained about is considered an infamy within the standards of the legal profession.
The general disciplinary power of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary committee is in relation to the following heads of offenses namely, infamous conduct in any professional respect, conducts considered to be incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner and fraudulently procuring enrollment as a legal practitioner.
Upon a finding of guilt, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary committee may direct the striking out of the name of the legal practitioner off the roll; or direct the suspension of the legal practitioner from practice; or admonishing the legal practitioner and any such direction may, where appropriate, include provision requiring the refund of moneys paid or the handing over of documents or any other thing as the circumstances of the case may require. See, section 12 (1)©(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Legal Practitioners Act. In the same manner, the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hand down the punishments as listed under Section 12 (1) ©(i),(ii) and (iii) of the Legal Practitioners Act.
However, there is only one head of offence over which the Supreme Court exercises its jurisdiction, which is, infamous conduct in any professional respect. What facts would sustain charges under the respective heads of offenses appear to be left to the decision of the regulatory body concerned.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria has disciplinary jurisdiction over legal practitioners in Nigeria. This power is donated by the generous provision of section 13 (2) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The only punishment that the Chief Justice of Nigeria is empowered under this section to mete out on erring lawyers is suspension from practice. The point as to which head of offence the Chief Justice of Nigeria is empowered to consider remains vague and undecided. This point is important considering that the punishment of suspension from legal practice attaches to all the heads of offenses, namely, infamous conduct in a professional respect, conduct incompatible with the status of a legal practitioner and obtaining fraudulent enrollment as a legal practitioner.
The Appellate quagmire resulting from decisions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).
An appellate vacuum has been created following the 26 June 2026 decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Ben Mene-Ejegi v. Nigerian Bar Association & Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee in suit no SC/481/2018. In a split decision of 5 to 2, the Supreme Court held that Section 12 (7) of the Legal Practitioners Act that conferred a direct right of appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of directions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee is inconsistent with provisions of the Constitution. Rationalizing its decision, Honourable Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC who delivered the majority opinion reasoned that section 233 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 ( as amended) created only one window by which appeals could lie to the Supreme Court, which is that all such appeals must have emanated from the Court of Appeal. In the wisdom of the Court, an ordinary legislative statute cannot enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution. True, Section 233(1) of the Constitution does not employ languages suggesting possibility of enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by ordinary legislative instrument. The decision of the Supreme Court resonates consistently with the exact language and text of section 233(1) of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court had previously held in 1989 per Oputa, JSC, “for it gladly accepts that it is far better to admit an error than to persevere, in error.” See, Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Adesanya (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250 particularly at page 275 Paras A-B. The decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi Supra acknowledged the errors in previous decisions of the Supreme Court wherein before it allowed direct appeals from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee to it. Ben Mene-Ejegi’s case effectively overruled previous decisions of the Supreme Court on the point of allowing a direct appeal to it. That decision is good law!
The next most important question is, where does an appeal from the decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee Lie.
To my mind, the incipient jurisdictional dichotomy in relation to appeals from decisions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee appears overstretched, overstated and beaten to death. Appeals, in my view, can lie from decisions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee to the Court of Appeal. Section 240 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) listed other tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly as forming subject of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. Hence, the relevant questions are; 1. is the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee a tribunal within the meaning of Section 240 of the Constitution (as amended.) 2. is the Legal Practitioners Act an Act of the National Assembly.3. is the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee a legislative prescription of the National Assembly. The Constitution and indeed, the Interpretation Act did not define the meaning of a tribunal. However, the Court of Appeal itself in Saraki v. F.R.N. (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 25, provided a reasonable insight into the subject matter when it held as follows:
The word “tribunal” means a type of court with the authority to deal (a)with a particular problem or disagreement; (b)a court of justice; a body that is appointed to make a judgment (c)or inquiry; a court convened to judge or investigate a(d)particular matter; (e)an adjudicatory body. (Pp. 57-58, paras. G-B, D)
Any administrative body, commission of inquiry, or committee exercising a quasi-judicial function qualifies, at the very least, as a tribunal. Where, as in this situation, such a tribunal is a creation of the National Assembly, it forms unequivocally within the context of Section 240 of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended.)
When these questions are answered, whether jointly or individually, it aids only one conclusion, that is, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee is a tribunal which direction is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal by virtue of Section 240 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Nnamdi Clinton is an Abuja based legal practitioner.
FOR SUPPORT TO BARRISTERNG BLOG, DONATE TO: 1. NAIRA ACCOUNT: 1023046978 - UBA 2. USD ACCOUNT: 5090743566 - FIDELITY BANK PLC
Call Bridget Edokwe Esq on 08060798767 or send your articles to barristerngblog@gmail.com
A Must-Have for Every Lawyer: Order Justice Alaba Omolaye-Ajileye’s Latest Books on Electronic Evidence Today: To order your copies, click the link below and order directly from the author:
https://velvety-cendol-7387ed.netlify.app/
SHOP NOW
The Price is 10k for Hard Copy less freight and 5k for E- Book copy in the Store of the Website. https://buokorie.com/store/ To access the hard copy, Call - 07087622283
