Prominent legal practitioner and former NBA national officer, John Aikpokpo-Martins., has argued that the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) lacks the jurisdiction to suspend Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria on facts that are already the subject of a pending petition before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), describing the LPPC’s action as “premature, jurisdictionally defective, and amounts to double trial” in violation of natural justice and the established principles governing disciplinary proceedings.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ELLAN.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/yemi.jpg")
Aikpokpo-Martins made the argument in a legal opinion titled “LPPC Lacks Jurisdiction to Discipline Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN on Facts Already Pending Before LPDC: The Doctrine Against Double Trial,” published following the announcement on Thursday, June 23, 2026, that the LPPC had suspended Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria pending disciplinary proceedings, a decision announced by Kabir Akanbi, Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, after the LPPC’s 173rd general meeting.
The Core Issue: Same Facts, Two Tribunals
Aikpokpo-Martins identified the central legal issue as straightforward: a petition on the same facts that form the basis of the LPPC’s action is already pending against Ozekhome at the LPDC, which is the statutory body empowered under Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act to discipline lawyers for professional misconduct and ethical infractions.
“The LPPC ought not to have the vires and jurisdiction on any issue of professional misconduct or ethical infraction against a Senior Advocate to the exclusion of the LPDC, once there is a petition on the same facts against a lawyer at the LPDC,” Aikpokpo-Martins stated.
“To proceed otherwise amounts to a double trial — trying the same lawyer, on the same facts, before two separate disciplinary tribunals. That is wrong and contrary to natural justice,” he added.
“SAN Is a Rank of Honour, Not a Separate Profession”
Aikpokpo-Martins addressed the foundational question of whether Senior Advocates of Nigeria are subject to a different or higher standard of professional conduct that would justify a separate disciplinary process.
His answer was emphatic: “The professional conduct and ethics expected of any lawyer is not statutorily higher or lesser than that imposed on a Senior Advocate of Nigeria. SAN is a rank of honour, not a separate profession. All lawyers, Senior Advocates included, remain ‘legal practitioners’ under the Legal Practitioners Act.”
The argument strikes at the basis for the LPPC’s action. If there is no separate ethical standard for Senior Advocates, there is no legal justification for the LPPC to conduct what amounts to a parallel disciplinary proceeding on facts that the LPDC, the designated disciplinary body for all legal practitioners, is already seized of.
The Three-Pronged Argument
Aikpokpo-Martins constructed his argument on three interrelated legal principles.
First, that jurisdiction is already vested in the LPDC. “The LPDC is seized of the matter. Jurisdiction, once validly invoked, cannot be usurped by another body,” he stated. This principle means that once a petition is properly filed before the LPDC and the committee has taken cognisance of it, no other body can assume jurisdiction over the same facts without undermining the LPDC’s statutory authority.
Second, that there is no hierarchy of ethics that would justify parallel proceedings. “Since ethical standards for Senior Advocates and non-Senior Advocates are the same, there is no legal basis for LPPC to ‘jump the queue’ and try the misconduct aspect itself,” Aikpokpo-Martins argued. The LPPC’s power under the Legal Practitioners Act is limited to conferring and withdrawing the rank of Senior Advocate. It is not a general disciplinary body for professional misconduct.
Third, that the doctrine against double jeopardy prohibits two disciplinary proceedings arising from one set of facts. Aikpokpo-Martins invoked the Latin maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa,” meaning no one should be twice troubled for one and the same cause. “A lawyer cannot be subjected to two disciplinary proceedings arising from one set of facts,” he stated. “That would violate the principle that no one should be twice troubled for one and the same cause.”
“LPPC Must Wait for LPDC”
Aikpokpo-Martins outlined what he described as the proper sequence of events.
“The LPPC must wait for the outcome of the petition before the LPDC before it can assume jurisdiction,” he stated.
He explained the logic: “If the LPDC finds no misconduct, the factual basis for LPPC’s action collapses. If the LPDC finds misconduct and sanctions him, the LPPC can then consider whether that sanction affects his fitness to retain the SAN rank. But it cannot pre-empt LPDC.”
The argument draws a clear distinction between the LPPC’s legitimate function and the function it is allegedly usurping. The LPPC’s legitimate function is to assess whether a Senior Advocate remains fit to hold the rank, a determination that can properly take into account a finding of misconduct by the LPDC. What the LPPC cannot do, Aikpokpo-Martins argued, is make its own finding of misconduct, bypassing the LPDC’s statutory jurisdiction, and using that self-made finding as the basis for suspending the rank.
“Effectively Determining Guilt”
Aikpokpo-Martins argued that the LPPC’s suspension of Ozekhome before the LPDC concludes its proceedings has the practical effect of prejudging the disciplinary case.
“By suspending Chief Ozekhome before LPDC concludes, LPPC is effectively determining guilt on professional misconduct — a function reserved for LPDC. That is an assumption of jurisdiction it does not have,” Aikpokpo-Martins stated.
“It also prejudges the LPDC proceedings and creates a spectacle of double trial,” he added.
The concern is significant. If the LPPC suspends a Senior Advocate’s rank on the basis of alleged misconduct before the LPDC has determined whether misconduct actually occurred, the suspension itself sends a message that guilt has been presumed. Any subsequent LPDC proceeding would take place against the backdrop of a de facto finding by the LPPC, potentially compromising the fairness and independence of the LPDC’s own determination.
“The LPPC’s Mandate Is Privileges, Not Discipline”
Aikpokpo-Martins concluded with a formulation that distilled his argument to its essence.
“The rule of law demands order in disciplinary processes. The LPPC’s mandate is privileges, not discipline. The LPDC’s mandate is discipline. Where facts overlap, LPDC takes precedence,” he stated.
“The LPPC’s suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN is premature, jurisdictionally defective, and amounts to double trial. In the interest of due process, LPPC must stay its hand and await the LPDC’s decision,” Aikpokpo-Martins concluded.
Aikpokpo-Martins’ opinion raises a broader institutional question about the relationship between the LPPC and the LPDC in the regulation of the legal profession. The Legal Practitioners Act establishes both bodies with distinct functions: the LPPC manages the conferment and potential withdrawal of the rank of Senior Advocate, while the LPDC handles disciplinary proceedings against all legal practitioners, including Senior Advocates, for professional misconduct.
The question of whether these two functions can be exercised simultaneously on the same set of facts, or whether the LPPC must defer to the LPDC where facts overlap, has not been definitively resolved by the courts. Aikpokpo-Martins’ opinion argues firmly for deference, but the LPPC has evidently taken a different view by proceeding with the suspension.
If Ozekhome challenges the LPPC’s action in court, the jurisdictional question that Aikpokpo-Martins has identified, whether the LPPC can exercise what amounts to disciplinary authority over a Senior Advocate on facts already pending before the LPDC, could become a test case for the proper delineation of the two bodies’ powers.
The LPPC’s 173rd general meeting resulted in the suspension of Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria pending disciplinary proceedings. The decision was announced by Kabir Akanbi, Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court.
The specific facts underlying the LPPC’s action and the pending LPDC petition were not detailed in Aikpokpo-Martins’ opinion, which focused on the jurisdictional and procedural questions rather than the merits of the underlying allegations.
Neither Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, nor the LPPC has publicly responded to the jurisdictional arguments raised by Aikpokpo-Martins as at the time of this report. The LPDC proceedings remain pending.
The opinion was authored by J.O. Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq., and described by the author as his “humble opinion” on the matter.
As an added bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE ebook titled: “How to use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion.”
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACiarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
“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
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
________________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
