Gadzama v LPDC: Was Justice Served or Halved?
Introduction It appears that the full import of the decision of the Federal High Court on 28th September, 2026 which reprieved Senior Advocate, Joe-Kyari Gadzama of the 3-year suspension slammed
The Federal High Court's decision to grant a reprieve to Senior Advocate Joe-Kyari Gadzama, who faced a three-year suspension imposed by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), has sparked debate on whether justice was served or merely halved. The decision, issued on September 28, 2026, occurred almost two months after the dispute began, marking an unprecedented speed in the legal process.
While most commentaries have focused on the merits of the LPDC's Direction, this account aims to examine whether the constitutional right to a fair hearing and the possibility of judicial review were upheld.
Chief Gadzama, SAN, sought to appeal the LPDC's Direction to the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers, but this option was unavailable due to its cessation through legislative amendment (Decree 21 of 1994). The Supreme Court was also closed to him by the 2018 decision in BEN MENE-EJEGI v NBA & LPDC (SC/481/2018). However, the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019 enabled him to seek judicial review through Justice Egwuatu.
Justice Egwuatu's decision to reprieve Gadzama was based on the constitutional protections in Section 36(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7(1), which grant individuals the right to an appeal against decisions affecting their civil rights and obligations. However, the analysis of Section 36(2)(b) was incomplete, as it only considered Paragraph (b) and ignored Paragraph (a), which requires an opportunity for affected parties to make representations before the decision is made.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of this provision in BAKARE v LAGOS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (1992) 3 NSCC 218 also supports this interpretation.
Critics argue that Justice Egwuatu's decision is problematic because it was taken out of context, disregarding the conjunction 'and' connecting Paragraphs (a) and (b) and misapplying Section 36(2)(b) without considering other constitutional safeguards. This raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of Justice Egwuatu's ruling and whether his interpretation of the Constitution correctly upheld the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity for appeal.
Written by urgent.news from This Day's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
