A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. M. O. Ubani, has said the recent decision of the Federal High Court in Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN v Body of Benchers & Ors has carried the doctrine of fair hearing beyond the traditional question of whether a person was heard at first instance, and into the question of whether an appellate protection contemplated by law is capable of being exercised at all.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
In a commentary titled “The Case of J-K Gadzama, SAN v. Body of Benchers and Others Presents a Deeper Meaning to Fair Hearing,” Ubani, who describes himself as a legal practitioner and policy analyst and who wrote from Copenhagen, Denmark, said the judgment delivered on 28 September 2026 by Hon. Justice Obiora Egwuatu in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1954/2026 “deserves considerable attention for the important constitutional question it raises and for what may well be a new dimension in the jurisprudence of fair hearing in Nigeria.”
Ubani began by disclosing his own disquiet before the decision was delivered.
“Before the recent decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Hon. Justice Obiora Egwuatu, I was personally concerned about the peculiar predicament in which J-K Gadzama, SAN, found himself,” he wrote.
“The three-year suspension imposed on him by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) appeared capable of running its full course without an effective appellate remedy, arising from a gap in the statutory framework which was no fault of the Applicant.”
He said the stakes in such a case are not merely professional. “The consequences of depriving a legal practitioner of the right to practise, even temporarily, are grave, both constitutionally and reputationally. In many jurisdictions, considerable safeguards attend the suspension or revocation of a lawyer’s licence.”
Ubani said he had not expected the application to survive the respondents’ challenge.
“When it became apparent that there was no functioning statutory appellate mechanism, I was concerned for J-K Gadzama, SAN, one of the giants of the Nigerian Bar,” he wrote. “When he subsequently approached the Federal High Court seeking judicial intervention, I honestly thought that a preliminary objection from the Body of Benchers would bring the application to an end. How wrong I was.”
Setting out the background, Ubani said the applicant, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, “had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) arising from a complaint of professional misconduct,” and that “he was alleged to have poached and taken away the brief of a colleague, which was considered wrongful.”
He then drew attention to how the proceedings were conducted, describing the point as important.
“The proceedings before the LPDC were conducted entirely on affidavit evidence. There was no oral testimony by any witness, and the Applicant himself never appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence,” he wrote.
“His participation in the proceedings consisted, among other things, of being represented by counsel, who filed a Counter-Affidavit in response to the complaint and the affidavit evidence placed before the Committee. Significantly, there was no cross-examination of any of the deponents to either the affidavit or the Counter-Affidavit.”
He said that at the conclusion of the proceedings the Committee issued a Direction dated 29 July 2026, “which included a three-year suspension from legal practice.”
Ubani located the applicant’s difficulty in the state of the law on appeals from the Committee.
“That was the beginning of the troubles of the Applicant. The difficulty arose from the state of the law governing appeals from the LPDC,” he wrote.
“In Ben Mene-Ejegi v. Nigerian Bar Association & Anor., the Supreme Court had struck down section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act, which purported to provide a direct appeal from the LPDC to the Supreme Court. The Applicant was in a quagmire as there was no effective statutory appellate mechanism through which he could challenge the Direction.”
He noted an admission on the record. “Significantly, the Body of Benchers itself acknowledged that there was no statutory provision establishing an Appeal Committee competent to entertain such an appeal.”
Ubani was careful to define the relief sought.
“The Applicant therefore boldly approached the Federal High Court, not for a rehearing of the disciplinary proceedings or a substitution of the Court’s assessment for that of the LPDC, but principally to challenge the constitutional propriety of implementing the disciplinary sanction in circumstances where the statutory appellate avenue was unavailable.”
On the court’s reasoning, Ubani said the significance lay in its treatment of fair hearing.
“The Federal High Court under Justice Egwuatu, without wasting time, came to a conclusion whose effect and dimension are still reverberating in the legal circle. What, in my respectful view, makes the decision particularly significant is the Court’s treatment of the doctrine of fair hearing,” he wrote.
“Traditionally, fair hearing is understood in terms of the right to know the case against oneself, the opportunity to present one’s case, call evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and have the matter determined by an impartial adjudicating body. Justice Egwuatu’s decision takes the principle into a further and important dimension.”
He continued: “The judgment suggests that where the law provides an appellate safeguard against an adverse determination, that safeguard must be real and capable of meaningful exercise. It cannot be reduced to a theoretical right where the decision sought to be challenged is immediately implemented in circumstances that effectively defeat the opportunity to appeal.”
On the constitutional provision engaged, he wrote: “The Court’s reasoning, in the peculiar circumstances before it, was that section 36(2)(b) of the Constitution could not be interpreted in a manner that permitted a determination to become effectively final and conclusive when the legal framework contemplated appellate protection but provided no practical mechanism through which that protection could be exercised.”
Ubani singled out the language in which the court expressed the point.
“The Court captured the injustice which could result from the contrary position in remarkably vivid language, likening the situation to ‘beating a child and asking him not to cry.’ The Court emphatically concluded: ‘That will not be justice. That will be injustice.'”
He added: “The judgment also demonstrates the continuing relevance of the ancient principle ubi jus, ibi remedium — where there is a right, there must be a remedy.”
Ubani stressed the limit the court observed.
“The Court was nevertheless careful not to convert judicial review into an appeal on the merits. It recognised that the Applicant was not inviting the Court to reconsider the factual findings or substitute its own assessment for that of the LPDC,” he wrote.
“The intervention was directed instead at the legality and constitutionality of implementing the Direction in circumstances in which the contemplated appellate protection was unavailable.”
He summarised the orders as he understood them: “The Court consequently held that the Direction was amenable to judicial review and that its implementation, in the absence of an effective appellate mechanism, was inconsistent with sections 36(1), 36(2) and 6(6)(b) of the Constitution. It restrained implementation of the Direction until an appropriate appellate avenue was established.”
Ubani concluded that the decision reframes the inquiry.
“In my respectful view, this decision has moved the conversation on fair hearing beyond the traditional question of whether a person was given an opportunity to be heard at first instance. It invites us to consider whether the entire adjudicatory process, including any constitutionally contemplated appellate protection, operates in a manner that gives practical meaning to the right. That is impactful!”
He added: “For now, Justice Egwuatu’s decision has opened an important and intellectually stimulating conversation about the relationship between fair hearing, access to justice, appellate remedies and constitutional protection. It is, in my respectful view, a bold decision and a significant contribution to Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence.”
His closing line was personal: “We are living in interesting legal times, and I am happy to be part of that generation.”
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
