The Supreme Court has held that the Legal Practitioners Act cannot give a direct appeal from the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to the Supreme Court. Lawyers disciplined by the LPDC are left without a clear appeal route.
The judgment
In Mene-Ejegi v NBA and LPDC (SC/481/2018), decided on 26 June 2026 by a 5–2 majority of a seven-member panel, the Court held section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act void to the extent it provides a direct appeal from the LPDC to the Supreme Court. The majority reasoned that the Constitution confines the Court’s appellate jurisdiction to appeals from the Court of Appeal, and that an Act of the National Assembly cannot extend it. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction (Vanguard).
The consequences so far
The Body of Benchers has said, in a letter of 13 August, that its Appeal Committee cannot be constituted with appellate jurisdiction under the current framework. On 28 September the Federal High Court in Abuja (Egwuatu J) granted Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama SAN leave to seek judicial review and restrained enforcement of the LPDC’s direction of 29 July suspending him for three years, until he has an avenue to appeal. The Body of Benchers and the LPDC contend that the High Court lacks jurisdiction; no ruling on that objection has been reported.
Why it matters
Analysis. Until the National Assembly or the profession’s bodies close the gap, LPDC sanctions are exposed to jurisdictional challenge. That matters to firms’ risk and compliance functions as much as to individual practitioners.
Photo: Fawaz.tairou / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (illustrative).
Leave a Reply