Mainstream news and online media were recently awash with the story of suspension of former Attorney General of Abia State, Mr. Uchenna Ihediwa, from using the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, pending the outcome of investigation by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). This was a fallout of the petition to Chief Justice of Nigeria and Chairman, Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) by the outgoing President, Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), Yakubu Chonoko Maikyau, SAN, alleging that Mr. Ihediwa violated Rules 26(4) (A) of the 2022 Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria by “conducting himself in a manner incompatible with the dignity and honour of the rank of SAN to wit: making spurious allegations against the judiciary in public, thereby putting the entire legal profession to national and international public ridicule & opprobrium…” Specifically, Maikyau noted that Ihediwa “alleged that lawyers (members of JSC) received bribes of up to N10, 000, 000 (Ten Million Naira), to influence the appointments of judicial officers” in Abia State, where he served as a Member of Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
Ihediwa’s claimed misconduct happened during the showcase session of International Bar Association (IBA) Conference in Paris, France, on Friday, November 3, 2023, which examined the impact of judicial appointments process in undermining the rule of law. It was a no-holds-barred session meant to proffer solutions, and people from different countries expressed their challenges freely.
Both Ihediwa and Maikyau as well as some other senior attorneys from Nigeria attended the conference. In his contribution, Olumide Akpata, SAN, said that Nigeria was playing Russian roulette with judicial appointments. Ihediwa’s comment that the process in Abia State was marred by corruption was what triggered NBA President’s interjection, which was frowned at by the moderator of the session. For Maikyau, Ihediwa is guilty of professional misconduct by failing to report the matter and therefore, should be disrobed of his SAN’s privileges.
On his return from the conference, Maikyau wrote an e-mail to Ihediwa, asking him to provide the proof of his allegations and furnish his office with the names and details of those involved. Barely two weeks after, he sent another e-mail with a three-day deadline for Ihediwa to supply all the demanded information. Maikyau claimed that “the respondent neither acknowledged nor responded to any of the said emails.” Maikyau opted to use his office as NBA President to seek for a range of sanctions against Ihediwa. He petitioned the LPPC and in turn, Ihediwa was asked to respond to the petition against him within 30 days.
In filing his defence, Ihediwa noted that he received Maikyau’s letter, but while articulating a response, Maikyau, “used his privileged position as NBA President to disgrace, denigrate and humiliate me in his speech at the 2023 Legal Year Ceremony held on 27/11/23.” He reasoned that Maikyau was biased and could be poised for a hatchet job. Ihediwa had to file a suit on 23rd December, 2023 against Maikyau before a High Court to enforce his fundamental rights. He also wrote to the Secretary of LPPC wherein he raised a preliminary objection and a rejoinder to the statement of facts in Maikyau’s petition. Thus, he stated that “if the Court finds that the complainant threatened and or breached his fundamental rights the Court should order the complainant not to proceed with his complain to any regulatory authority like LPPC.”
Ihediwa raised four posers. One, he wanted to know whether Maikyau as a Member of LPPC participated in the plenary session that approved that his complaint be referred to a disciplinary sub-committee. Two, if the number one above is in the affirmative, he asked, “Can LPPC proceed with determination of the complaint having regard to the hallowed principles of natural justice?” Three, he questioned whether it would not be tantamount to witch hunt if other Nigerian speakers at the event who spoke damningly about the judiciary were spared by Maikyau, but only Ihediwa was singled out. Four, he stated that Maikyau lodged the complaint in his official capacity as NBA President when the issue was private to him, and that taking it up in his official capacity renders it incompetent since the matter was not deliberated at branch or national levels.
Addressing the key issues of the petition, Ihediwa was emphatic that he did not lie. Rather, it was Maikyau “that reacted to a matter he knew nothing about and confused my (Ihediwa’s) narration of what happened at JSC as corruption in the judiciary.” First, the issue of alleged bribery in the appointment of judges was blown open by Nigeria’s The Sun Newspaper of 1st November, 2021, and not Ihediwa. Second, it was to correct this anomaly that made Ihediwa to cite the Abia case which was already in the public domain while advocating for an amendment of Section 197 of the Constitution of Nigeria. Third, Ihediwa noted the he should not be expected to report the matter as LPDC does not try criminal cases, and moreover attorney general does not initiate investigation of a crime but prosecute based on cogent facts. More important, the principal complainant had died and the wish of the family in a sworn affidavit was that the matter should not be prosecuted after the recovery of their money. Four, he noted that the constitution of NBA provides that a complaint of professional misconduct against a member will be investigated by the branch, and if found culpable, it would be referred to a disciplinary committee.
In this case, Maikyau jumped the gun. From available facts, the petition has no merit. Ihediwa breached no rules. He should not be vilified but commended as a conscientious minister in the temple of justice for joining forces with the Bar to stop a dirty process. LPPC and NBA should rethink the idea of suspension before investigation as it is akin to sentence before trial. The damages of negative labeling are often difficult to erase even after rebuttal. May appropriate authorities find courage and discretion to serve justice timeously.