The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has suspended Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, from legal practice for three years and Ocha P. Ulegede, Esq., for two years, in Complaint No. BB/LPDC/1314/2024 filed by Chris Alashi, Esq., following findings of professional misconduct arising from the long-running dispute over the representation of the victims of the 2001 Zaki-Biam military invasion and the disbursement of the N8 billion consent judgment obtained on their behalf.
The Final Direction was delivered on July 29, 2026, by Hon. Justice Halima I. Abdulmalik, CJ, Niger State, on behalf of a panel comprising Mr Umeh Kalu, SAN (Presiding Member), Hon. Justice Halima I. Abdulmalik, CJ, Niger; Hon. Justice Halima S. Mohammed, CJ, Gombe; Dr Garba Usman Tetengi, SAN, mni; and Mr Solomon Umoh, SAN.
The Origin: Zaki-Biam, October 2001
The matter traces to October 2001, when soldiers of the 93 Battalion of the Nigerian Army invaded Zaki-Biam and surrounding communities in Logo, Ukum, Kwande and Katsina-Ala Local Government Areas of Benue State following the killing of 19 soldiers. Hundreds of civilians died and property was destroyed on a vast scale.
Survivors and 13 other victims sued the Federal Government at the Federal High Court, Enugu. On July 5, 2007, Justice Lewis Allagoa awarded them N41.8 billion in compensation.
The Federal Government appealed in CA/E/410/2008, then entered settlement negotiations. At a meeting on May 21, 2013, presided over by the then Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke, SAN, CFR, the judgment sum was compromised from N41.8 billion to N8 billion, culminating in a consent judgment at the Court of Appeal.
The Joint Account
The AGF directed that the lawyers resolve the representation dispute and jointly provide a bank account into which the compromised sum would be paid, with an undertaking that the money would reach the beneficiaries.
On May 23, 2013, the Applicant, the 1st Respondent and S.T. Hon, SAN, met at the 1st Respondent’s office and signed UBA joint account opening forms. The account was opened on May 28, 2013. The three of them wrote to the Minister providing the details, and the judgment creditors wrote jointly agreeing that the money be paid into it. The joint account details were captured in the Terms of Settlement adopted as the consent judgment of the Court of Appeal.
How Gadzama SAN Entered
According to the Committee’s findings, Gadzama filed a notice of change of counsel in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2015 and relied on a document, Exhibit JK 2, dated May 22, 2015, as the authority conferred on him by the judgment creditors to take over the suit and to set aside the consent judgment.
The Committee found three fatal defects in that document.
First: “The instruction was on the letter headed paper of Benue Development Movement, a non-party to the proceedings.”
Second: “It was not signed by the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th Judgment Creditors.”
Third, and most damning: “The 8th Judgment Creditor, Zaki Kaduna Mazan, was long dead when the document was purportedly signed by him.”
The Committee found that Zaki Kaduna Mazan died on September 11, 2010, and that his signature “sought to have signed same from the grave on 22nd May, 2015,” nearly five years later. The Court of Appeal had already declared the document forged.
“He Lied That He Had Instructions From All the Judgment Creditors”
The Committee found that the notice of change of counsel dated May 22, 2015, stated that “the 1st to 14th Respondents/Judgment Creditors/Applicants doth hereby change their counsel on record from the law firm of Oche P. Ulegede and Co. to the law firm of J.K. Gadzama LLP.”
“The 2nd Respondent lied that he had instructions from all the Judgment Creditors and if he had any legitimate authority, he acted beyond his purported representation mandate,” the Committee held.
The Disclaimers
The Committee recorded the affidavit of the 10th Judgment Creditor, Mbayemen Masewuan, deposed on July 1, 2015, describing how she and others were transported from their village to Abuja on the pretext that their money was about to be paid, taken to the 2nd Respondent’s office where she did not see her lawyer, and told by officers of the Benue Development Movement “to forget about their lawyers.”
The 3rd Judgment Creditor, Anongo Unishigh, deposed: “I and the Judgment Creditors who were made to sign our signatures on documents presented to us at the office of J.K. Gadzama, SAN on the 10th June, 2015 and 22nd June, 2015 by this affidavit now renounce the signatures for all purposes. By this affidavit and letters we are asking J.K. Gadzama, SAN and all those he uses to stay off this case.”
From Exhibits OPU 44 to OPU 49, the Committee found, “the Judgment Creditors disclaimed the 2nd Respondent as their counsel.”
What the Court of Appeal Had Already Said
The Committee relied on Exhibit 27, the Court of Appeal ruling in motion No. CA/E/377M/2015, reported as Orngu & Ors v. Gaadi & Ors (2016) LPELR 42083 CA, in which the appellate court held:
“I agree totally with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Judgment Creditors’ submission on the ‘despicable role’ played by J.K. Gadzama, SAN who some of us regard and should be seen as a role model. He has wittingly or unwittingly been goaded by unscrupulous gold diggers who are wont to exploit the unfortunate plights of the Judgment Creditors.”
The Court of Appeal further held that Gadzama “in spite of warnings and disclaimers by the Judgment Creditors, proceeded in a manner smacking of patent breach of Rules 27(4) and 29(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, hijacked a case which from inception had been commenced and completed up to Appeal and execution and without Notice to Ocha P. Ulegede Esq. proceeded to file Garnishee proceedings on the promptings of Charlatans and indeed this Application which to my mind is brought in utmost bad faith.”
The Appeal the Clients Withdrew Themselves
The Committee found that on February 14, 2017, Gadzama filed a Notice of Appeal against the Court of Appeal decision, numbered SC/214/2017.
On December 19, 2017, the judgment creditors on whose behalf the appeal was purportedly filed withdrew it themselves, stating in the Notice of Withdrawal:
“We are not aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal. This appeal was filed without our authority. We are not interested in this appeal. We have asked J.K. Gadzama LLP to withdraw the appeal but he has refused to do so. We are compelled to withdraw the appeal ourselves and we hereby withdraw the entire appeal.”
It was signed by all six appellants: Peter Orngu, Amos Kaduna, Mbakesen Ayatse, Anande Agashia, Elizabeth Aonghakaa and Andrew Junta.
“The 2nd Respondent persisted, in spite of Exhibit 29, which was served on him on 10th January, 2018, and on 6th June, 2019, he filed an application seeking to amend the Notice of Appeal by moving the names of three of the Applicant’s clients to the other side as Respondents,” the Committee found.
Pursuing N41.8bn While N8bn Garnishee Was Pending
The Committee also noted: “While the garnishee proceeding No. FHC/ABJ/CS/321/2015 filed on 9th April, 2015 was pending in respect of the N8 billion Judgment Sum, the 2nd Respondent without being properly briefed by the Judgment Creditors proceeded to file Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/444/2015 seeking to recover the sum of N41.8 billion from the Judgment Debtors.”
Signature Analysis
The Committee conducted its own comparison of signatures, finding that those of Andrew Juntu in Exhibits JK 3, JK 6 and JK 8 did not correspond with that in JK 7, and that the signature on the “Terms of Disbursement” attached to Exhibit 34 was irregular.
“Perhaps the 2nd Respondent has some explanations to offer,” the Committee observed, adding that Juntu “appears to be working in concert with BDM, Mathew Ayoo Angwe and Patrick Twar of the BDM who are not parties to the Suit.”
On Exhibit JK 9, purportedly made by Elizabeth Aonghakaa, the Committee held: “it was not sworn to by her. It is therefore a worthless document.”
“Enticing Them With Money”
“We are satisfied from Exhibit 26, paragraphs 12 to 18, that the 2nd Respondent is guilty of denigrating the Applicant’s standing and poaching his clients by enticing them with money and gradually winning some of them over and those that still rejected him, he made Respondents,” the Committee held.
It also found from Clause C of Exhibit 32 “that the 2nd Respondent was imposed on the judgment creditors by the Tor Tiv,” adding: “But the law is sacrosanct, that a litigant is free to engage a counsel of his choice.”
“God Forbid That We See the Day”
On the garnishee order absolute granted by Justice Ekwo of the Federal High Court, which departed from the Court of Appeal’s direction that the judgment sum be paid into the UBA joint account, the Committee expressed alarm.
“It is therefore strange that Ekwo J of the Federal High Court, in granting the Garnishee Order Absolute, jettisoned the clear pronouncement of the Court of Appeal. It is even more strange and worrisome that the 2nd Respondent who happens to be a Senior Advocate of Nigeria will state that the ruling of Ekwo J is the subsisting ruling on the disbursement issue. God forbid that we see the day when the decisions of lower Courts will take precedence over those of the superior Courts in this Country,” the Committee held.
However, it declined to make an adverse finding on one allegation: “We cannot however conclude that the 2nd Respondent exerted undue influence on the Judge.”
The Meeting the Applicant Was Not Invited To
From Exhibit FB 3 of the Debt Management Office, the Committee found that the 1st and 2nd Respondents met with Hon. Eze Nwa Uwa and agreed on the disbursement schedule excluding the Applicant.
“Why was the Applicant not called to the meeting and why was his name not captured in the Disbursement Schedule, knowing fully well that he was a counsel in the matter?” the Committee asked, noting that under Exhibit 23 the Applicant was to receive N168,000,000 and under Exhibit 24A, which the 1st Respondent signed, N300,000,000.
The Findings Against Ulegede
The Committee found that Ulegede filed Suit No. FHC/LF/CS/2/2021 in February 2021 claiming N6.1 billion out of the N8 billion judgment sum, withdrew it, then filed Suit No. FHC/MKD/CS/2/2022 in January 2022 with the same parties and subject matter, and “sensing danger upon the service of the Applicant’s processes, he again withdrew/discontinued the Suit on 6th April, 2022.”
“The two subsequent Suits filed and withdrawn would have adversely affected what would be due to him and his clients and this exhibits lack of good faith on the part of the 1st Respondent,” the Committee held.
The Committee also found that although Ulegede claimed to be the only counsel in the case from inception, “the assertion was not supported by evidence,” noting that he had himself proposed N400,000,000 for the Applicant as professional fees and had advised him what to claim.
The Rules Breached
The Committee found Gadzama liable under Rule 1 (upholding the rule of law and not engaging in conduct unbecoming), Rule 27(1) (observing good faith and fairness in dealing with other lawyers) and Rule 29(1)(b) (a new lawyer must use best endeavours to ensure the former lawyer is paid earned fees) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, punishable under Section 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act.
Ulegede was found liable under Rule 1 of the same Rules.
Citing Ifeogu v. LPDC (2009) LPELR 1559 SC, the Committee restated that misconduct includes “any conduct which constitutes conduct despicable and morally reprehensible as to bring the legal profession into disrepute if condoned or unpunished.”
On Professional Fees
The Committee declined to entertain the Applicant’s second prayer, for payment of his professional fees: “We are unable to consider this or even comment on it because this is far beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee. The Applicant can make recourse to the regular Courts.”
The Direction
Ocha P. Ulegede, enrolment No. 006093, was suspended from the Roll of Legal Practitioners and from practising law for two years from the date of the Direction.
Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, enrolment No. 007748, was suspended from the Roll and from the business of practising law for three years from the date of the Direction.
The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court was directed to effect the order and make notation against both names on the Roll. The Direction was ordered to be published in the PUNCH Newspaper and the Federal Gazette, served on the NBA President for onward notification to the General Council of the Bar, the NEC and other organs, and brought to the attention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the President of the Court of Appeal, the President of the National Industrial Court, the Chief Judges of the FCT, the Federal High Court and all State High Courts, the Grand Kadis, the Presidents of the Customary Courts of Appeal, the Attorney-General of the Federation and all 36 State Attorneys-General, the Inspector-General of Police and all State Commissioners of Police.
DIRECTON ULEGEDE AND GADZAMA THeNigeriaLawyer
[DOWNLOAD]
Gadzama’s Response
In a statement issued the same day, Gadzama said he had instructed his legal team to file an immediate appeal.
“While I am yet to receive or review the certified true copy of the direction, I have instructed my legal team to file an immediate appeal,” he stated.
“The complaint against me alleged that I improperly took over another lawyer’s brief, solicited clients, and wrongfully appropriated professional fees. Those allegations are, with respect, unfounded. I was retained directly by the judgment creditors through written letters of instruction and acted throughout strictly in accordance with that professional retainer. In my respectful view, the documentary evidence before the Committee does not support the findings made against me,” he stated.
He said the complaint “fundamentally arose from a dispute concerning legal representation and professional fees” and that “the disciplinary process was not the appropriate forum for resolving such issues.”
He assured clients and the public that “upon the filing of the appeal within the time prescribed by law, my right to practise as a legal practitioner remains unaffected pending the final determination of the appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.”
A Complication
Gadzama’s stated route of appeal is complicated by the Supreme Court’s judgment of June 26, 2026, in SC/481/2018, Ben Mene-Ejegi Esq. v. NBA & LPDC, delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, JSC, in which the apex court departed from Okike v. LPDC and held that Section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act, which purports to confer a right of direct appeal from the LPDC to the Supreme Court, is void to the extent of its inconsistency with Sections 233 and 240 of the Constitution.
Appearances
The Applicant appeared in person. O.D. Obande, Esq., with O.D. Ulegede, Esq., and S.A. Odiba, Esq., appeared for the 1st Respondent. Madu Joe Kyari-Gadzama, Esq., and Ekenne Clinton, Esq., appeared for the 2nd Respondent.
The Direction was dated at Abuja on July 29, 2026.
The post Full LPDC Direction Reveals Why Gadzama SAN Was Suspended For Three Years And Ulegede Two Years [DOWNLOAD] appeared first on TheNigeriaLawyer.