The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has suspended Joe-Kyari Gadzama, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), from legal practice for three years over his role in a case involving victims of the Zaki Biam killings in Benue State.
Another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, was also sanctioned with a two-year suspension over the same matter.
The disciplinary action followed a petition marked BB/LPDC/1314/2024, filed by lawyer Chris Alash. The committee delivered its decision on Wednesday, finding both Gadzama and Ulegede guilty of breaching provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023.
The LPDC directed that all heads of superior courts of record in Nigeria be notified of its decision, adding that the suspensions take immediate effect from the date of judgment.
Background of the Case
The Zaki Biam incident dates back to October 2001, when more than 200 villagers were killed after soldiers invaded several communities in and around the Zaki Biam area of Benue State. The military operation was reportedly carried out in retaliation for the killing of 19 soldiers whose bodies were discovered in the area. The invasion also led to widespread destruction of property.
Following the incident, victims and survivors filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government at the Federal High Court in Enugu, seeking compensation for loss of lives, property damage, and violations of their fundamental human rights.
In July 2007, Justice Lewis Allagoa awarded the plaintiffs N41.8 billion in damages against the Federal Government. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the government filed an appeal but later entered negotiations with the plaintiffs for an out-of-court settlement.
Both parties reportedly agreed on a reduced compensation of N8 billion. However, controversy arose when reports indicated that the funds might be paid to the Benue State Government under the administration of then-governor Gabriel Suswam, instead of directly to the victims.
In February 2015, senior lawyers Itsay Sagay and Mike Ozekhome cautioned the Federal Government against channeling the compensation through the state government.
Reacting to the LPDC decision, Gadzama described the allegations against him as unfounded. He stated that the petition accused him of improperly taking over another lawyer’s brief, soliciting clients, and wrongfully appropriating professional fees.
According to him, he was engaged directly by the judgment creditors through written letters of instruction and acted strictly within the scope of his professional mandate.
Gadzama disclosed that he has instructed his legal team to file an immediate appeal against the decision.
“I have been informed that the Committee found against me and directed that I be suspended from legal practice for a period of three years,” he said.
“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.
“I wish to reassure my clients, colleagues, and the general public that upon filing the appeal within the time prescribed by law, my right to practise remains unaffected pending the final determination of the appeal, in accordance with the Legal Practitioners Act.”
He maintained that the documentary evidence presented before the committee does not support the findings reached against him.