Appraising The Innovations Of The New Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) Rules 2020

TheNigerialawyer

1. Introduction

The Chief Justice of Nigeria(CJN), Hon. Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad on 5th day of March, 2020 issued the new Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) Rules, 2020 repealing that of 2006. This was made in pursuant to the powers conferred on the CJN by the dint of Section 10(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, CAP. L.11, LFN 2004

Meanwhile, the 2006 LPDC Rules had 23 sections while the 2020 Rules has 32 sections. Beyond this, there are several identified innovations brought by the recently issued 2020 Rules. In any case, the objective is to set out the innovations compared to the 2006 Rules.

2. The Innovations Introduced By LPDC Rules, 2020 vis a vis LPDC Rules, 2006

Below are the innovations

a. The Constitution of Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee (LPDC)

The 2006 LPDC Rules does not have any provision relating to the constitution of the LPDC. However, Rule 3 of the 2020 Rules now provides for the constitution of the Committee. Importantly, Rule 3(1) gives the Chairman the power to constitute the Committee in which he would preside or designate someone to do so.

However, Rule 3(2) is to the effect that the Committee shall be duly constituted with 3 members and more importantly, the decision of the Committee cannot be rendered invalid as it relates to quorum except as prescribed under the Interpretation Act.

Meanwhile, Section 28 of the Interpretation Act provides:

Quorum
Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act or other enactment the quorum of any tribunal, commission of enquiry (including an appeal tribunal established for the purpose of hearing any appeal arising therefrom) shall not be less than two (including the Chairman):

Provided that the chairman and the member shall be present at every sitting of the tribunal, commission of enquiry throughout the duration of the trial or hearing.

By the dint of the provision of Rule 3(2), it therefore means that when the issue of quorum arises before the Committee, the above Section 28 would be resorted to. Hence, by the decision in SARAKI v. FRN(2016) LPELR-40013(SC), two members can now constitute a quorum of LPDC.

b. Originating Application vs Complaint

The 2006 Rules, Rule 3 thereof provides for the phrase “Complaint” against a Legal Practitioner before the LPDC. However, by Rule 4 of 2020, the word is now “Originating Application”. Meanwhile, the 2006 Rules does not provide a time frame within which the “Complaint” should be forwarded to the LPDC upon being received by the appropriate persons, either CJN, Attorney General of Federation, President of Court of Appeal or Presiding Justice of Court of Appeal, NBA President or Chairman of its Branch or LPDC. However, by Rule 4(2) of the 2020 Rules, the Originating Application is to be forwarded to LPDC (in case of others listed above) now within 30 days of receipt thereof by any of the listed persons.

Furthermore, the Originating Application is expected to be accompanied by a supporting affidavit by Rule 4(4). Besides, Rule 4(5) now provides for an Originating Application taken out by the Nigerian Bar Association which was missing in the 2006 Rules.

c. Preliminary Consideration of Originating Application

The 2006 Rules does not have the similar provision like Rule 5 of the 2020 Rules. Initially, by Rule 7 of 2006, the hearing of a complaint would be fixed after same has been received. However, the innovation brought by Rule 5 of 2020 provides for a preliminary consideration of an Originating Application. That is, an Originating Application would not just proceed to the hearing stage upon being received.

By Rule 5(1), the Chairman is obligated to set up an “initial Committee members” who shall first consider whether there is a case to answer against the Respondent on the strength of the Originating Application. Hence, if it feels that there is a question of difficulty in the case, the LPDC shall set up another Committee of three persons (which may include members of the initial commitee) pursuant to Rule 5(3) in order to consider the question and when it feels a case is to be answered, the Committee shall certify accordingly.

Meanwhile, by Rule 5(4), if the Committee certifies that there is no case to answer, it may not dismiss same but must furnish the Applicant with the reasons for its decision.

d. Defence to Originating Application

The 2006 Rule does not provide for specific provision dealing with the Respondent’s defence to the application. However, Rule 10 of the 2020 Rules now sets out the detailed means of responding to an application through an affidavit with other supporting documents. Also, there is permission for an oral evidence if the Committee deems it necessary by virtue of Rule 10(2).

e. Supplementary Statement

Rule 6 of the 2020 Rules now specifically provides for the right of the Applicant to provide an additional statement in support of the already filed Application before the Committee subject to the stipulated conditions.

f. Application of the Evidence Act

Rule 10(2) of the 2006 Rules provides for the mandatory application of the Evidence Act in the proceedings before the LPDC. However, by Rule 9(1) of the 2020 Rules, the strict application of the Evidence Act shall not be enforced before the LPDC. Furthermore, by Rule 9(2), the Committee is only bound by the provisions of the Rules and the Practice Directions issued by the Chairman of the Committee.

g. Previous Findings of Record

One of the innovations of the 2020 Rules by virtue of Rule 12(2) is a provision providing for the usage of previous records indicating the conviction of such a legal practitioner by a Court or Tribunal and also, a production of such a judgment is conclusive proof.

Also, by Rule 12(4),a judgment in a civil case can be tendered where certified and it would be conclusive. Besides, an evidence can be provided of the decision or order of Court proving that the findings of a body in Nigeria or outside, exercising disciplinary action was made ultra vired.

h. Abridgment of Service of Hearing Notice

By the provision of Rule 7(3) of the 2006 Rules, service is expected to be effected on the Respondent within 30 days between service of the notice and hearing. However, by Rule 12(4) the 2020 Rules, the days have now been reduced to 15 days.

i. Service through National Newspaper or E-mail

Rule 12(2) of the 2020 Rules now allows service of hearing notice on the Respondent, either through newspaper or email in addition to the traditional styles adopted under Rule 7(2) of the 2006 Rules.

j. Rehearing

A party has a right to apply for a rehearing as a result of absence. Rule 9 of the 2006 Rules does not impose a time frame within which such an application can be brought. However, by Rule 14(1) of the 2020 Rules, an Applicant only has 14 days within which to apply for a rehearing, from the date the pronouncement or direction of the LPDC was made.

k. Non Appearance of Members of LPDC

Rule 11 of the 2006 Rules prohibits a member of LPDC from representing a legal practitioner against whom a proceeding is brought. Furthermore, Rule 16 of the 2020 Rules adds that a member cannot still represent notwithstanding that he is not a member of the panel.

l. False Evidence

Any person that gives false evidence before the LPDC, such is expected to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions by virtue of Rule 12 of the 2006 Rules. Meanwhile, Rule 17 of the 2020 Rules now provides that such person be referred to the Attorney General.

m. Proceedings of Committee: Public/Private

Rule 13 of the 2006 Rules provides:

The proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee shall be held in private , but its findings and directions shall be pronounced in public.

However, Rule 18 of 2020 Rules provides to the effect that the proceedings of the LPDC and the subsequent announcement of its decision shall be held in public, except on exceptional situations where the Committee is of the opinion that the interest of Legal Profession compels privacy of hearing.

n. Written Address

Rule 20 of the 2020 Rules states that upon the direction of the Committee, the written address of the parties after the conclusion of hearing can be filed. This was missing in the 2006 Rules. Also, Rule 20(2) permits an oral adumbration of not more than 10 minutes on both sides.

o. Finding Guilty

Rule 16 of the 2006 Rules merely provides that if guilty, the LPDC may give a direction either to order the name of the legal practitioner be struck off the roll, suspension or admonition. However, Rule 22(c) of the 2020 Rules provides for an additional measures that may be taken which is to order a refund or handing over of documents or any other things subject to the circumstances.

Furthermore, the proviso to Rule 22 of the 2020 Rules empowers the LPDC to impose more than one directions where necessary, on the legal practitioners.

p. Revocation of Finding

This is another innovation. Rule 24 of the 2020 Rules empowers the Committee to revoke an order made on the strength of a judgment, direction, order or certificate of conviction produced before it, if it later appears that same had been set aside or quashed. This revocation is upon an application by NBA or the Respondent.

q. Recording of Proceedings

By Rule 27(1)(a) of the 2020 Rules, it is now allowed for the proceedings of the LPDC to be recorded electronically which is not contained in Rule 20(1) of the 2006 Rules.

r. Dispensing With Rules

Rule 21 of the 2006 Rules provides that the Rules may be dispensed with by LPDC. In addition to that, Rule 28 of the 2020 Rules further provides that the proceedings of the LPDC shall not be vitiated for non compliance with the Rules, except if the LPDC directs to the contrary.

s. Fees

This is equally a new innovation by Rule 31 of the 2020 Rules.By this provision, the fees payable at the Court of Appeal, for the time being, shall apply to the proceedings of the LPDC but however exempting the Applicant from paying any fees.

TheNigerialawyer Editorial