The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has raised concerns over the uncertainty facing legal practitioners seeking to challenge decisions of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the statutory provision allowing direct appeals from the committee to the apex court.
NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, disclosed this at the Association’s Annual General Meeting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, on Thursday, saying the NBA had proposed an amendment to the Legal Practitioners Act (LPA) to designate the Court of Appeal as the appropriate appellate court for LPDC decisions.
According to Osigwe, the Supreme Court struck down Section 12(7) of the LPA, which had provided for direct appeals against LPDC Directions to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that ordinary legislation could not confer such jurisdiction on the apex court outside the constitutional framework governing its appellate jurisdiction.
“The Supreme Court struck down Section 12(7), I think, of the LPA, which initially empowered the Supreme Court to hear appeals against sanctions of the LPDC,” Osigwe told members at the AGM.
He said the decision had created a difficult situation for lawyers dissatisfied with disciplinary Directions issued by the LPDC, particularly as the previous appeal mechanism involving the Body of Benchers had also been affected by amendments to the legal framework.
Osigwe said lawyers currently affected by LPDC decisions would need to obtain independent legal advice on the remedies available to them while awaiting legislative action.
“The current decision will require persons who are affected by this to seek the counsel of their lawyers. I’m not going to give you any legal advice,” he said.
The NBA President said the Association had already submitted a memorandum to the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice proposing a legislative solution.
He explained that rather than restoring the provision for direct appeals from the LPDC to the Supreme Court, the amended law should give aggrieved practitioners a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
“What we had, in a memo submitted to the Attorney-General, suggested that [the provision] presently undergoing an amendment, which provides for appeal to the Supreme Court, should be replaced with an appeal to the Court of Appeal,” Osigwe said.
He argued that the proposal would better align the disciplinary appeal process with Nigeria’s constitutional structure, noting that the National Assembly has the power to confer appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal over decisions of tribunals and other bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Osigwe cited the Armed Forces Act as an example, pointing out that appeals against decisions of a General Court Martial proceed directly to the Court of Appeal.
“You will recall that under the Armed Forces Act, appeal against [the decision] of a General Court Martial goes straight to the Court of Appeal,” he said.
“So we have made that suggestion, and I’m hoping that we will call on that by ensuring that amendment is quickly concluded.”
He also disclosed that the NBA had engaged relevant lawmakers, including the leadership of the Senate committee responsible for judiciary matters, as part of efforts to resolve the issue through legislation.
The uncertainty surrounding the appropriate procedure for challenging LPDC decisions has gained additional attention following the recent legal action instituted by Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
On August 20, 2026, Justice Obiora-Atuegwu Egwuatu of the Federal High Court granted Gadzama leave to commence judicial review proceedings seeking an order of certiorari to quash an LPDC Direction delivered on July 29, 2026.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026, was filed against the Body of Benchers, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, Chris Alashi, Esq., and Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq.
The LPDC Direction being challenged arose from Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024, Chris Alashi, Esq. v Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq. & Anor.
Gadzama’s motion ex parte was dated August 18 and filed on August 19, 2026. His counsel, M.E. Oru, SAN, asked the Federal High Court to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings pursuant to Order 34 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules.
Justice Egwuatu subsequently granted leave for Gadzama to apply for an order of certiorari to bring the LPDC Direction before the Federal High Court for the purpose of seeking its quashing.
The court directed that the substantive application be filed within seven days from August 20 and adjourned the matter to September 4, 2026, for hearing, subject to service on the respondents.
The leave granted by the court does not, however, amount to a finding that the LPDC Direction is unlawful or invalid. The respondents were also not heard at the leave stage.
Gadzama’s case has nevertheless brought renewed attention to the practical difficulties surrounding challenges to LPDC decisions following the Supreme Court’s ruling on direct appeals.
It cannot, however, be conclusively established that the Supreme Court’s decision was the reason Gadzama opted for judicial review at the Federal High Court. The enrolled order granting leave does not state that the Supreme Court ruling formed the basis of his decision to adopt that procedure.
The case could nonetheless raise important legal questions, including whether judicial review is available against an LPDC Direction, whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a challenge and what remedies are currently available to practitioners dissatisfied with disciplinary decisions.
Before the Supreme Court’s intervention, Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act provided the statutory basis for practitioners aggrieved by LPDC Directions to appeal directly to the apex court.
Osigwe’s position is that following the Supreme Court’s ruling, fresh legislation is necessary to establish a constitutionally sustainable appellate mechanism.
The NBA’s proposal would consequently place the Court of Appeal between the LPDC and the Supreme Court, rather than revive the former arrangement under which appeals proceeded directly from the disciplinary committee to the apex court.
For the NBA President, concluding the proposed amendment has become urgent to ensure that lawyers affected by disciplinary decisions are not left without clarity on where and how they can exercise their right to challenge such decisions.
Until the legislative process is completed, however, Osigwe advised affected practitioners to seek legal counsel and determine the appropriate remedies available under the existing legal framework.