THE HEADLINES HAVE NOT TOLD
A closer look at the Benue judgment, competing retainerships, the N8 billion consent judgment
and the professional dispute that eventually reached the LPDC. By Kachi E. Agwu
Abuja, Nigeria — Recent public discussion surrounding the decision against Chief J-K
Gadzama, SAN, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has understandably
generated strong reactions.
For the general public, the language of a disciplinary sanction against a Senior Advocate can
create an immediate impression of serious wrongdoing. But there is a much longer and more
complicated story behind the matter.
At its centre is a N41.8 Billion judgment arising from one of the most tragic episodes in Benue
State's history, subsequent litigation over the enforcement of that judgment, competing claims
concerning legal representation and retainership, an N8 billion consent judgment, and a
prolonged disagreement between legal practitioners over who was properly authorised to act for
the judgment creditors and who was entitled to professional fees.
The Origin: A N41.8 Billion Judgment
In October 2001, detachments of Nigerian soldiers attacked communities across four Local
Government Areas of Benue State. Hundreds of civilians were reportedly killed, while homes
and properties were destroyed. In 2003, two separate suits were instituted at the Federal High
Court by a total of 14 plaintiffs against the Nigerian Army and the Federal Government. The
suits were subsequently consolidated. In 2007, judgment was delivered in favour of the plaintiffs
in the total sum of approximately N41.8 billion.
An appeal followed in 2008. It was during the prolonged appellate process that the events which
would eventually become the subject of the professional dispute began to unfold.
How The Professional Dispute Began
Mr Ocha P. Ulegede had acted for the 14 plaintiffs at the Federal High Court and had taken
steps towards garnisheeing the judgment sum. Following years of delay in the appeal process,
some judgment creditors explored other means of persuading the Federal Government to settle
the judgement debt. According to available documents, Mr. Ulegede was subsequently
debriefed through letters by the judgment creditors. Meanwhile, some of the judgment creditors
then briefed Chief Gadzama SAN to pursue recovery of the judgment sum through garnishee
proceedings.
However, a consent judgment for N8 billion had already been entered on 2 February 2015,
based on the Terms of Settlement dated 23 January 2015 and filed on 30 January 2015. Court
records indicate that none of the 14 judgment creditors signed those Terms of Settlement. Chief
J-K Gadzama SAN only became aware of the N8 billion settlement when he sought to pursue
recovery of the original judgment sum of N41.8 billion and encountered garnishee proceedings
seeking to recover N8 billion.
This created a fundamental question: Who had authorised the compromise of a N41.8 billion
judgment to N8 billion? And, perhaps more importantly, who had authority to act for the
judgment creditors at that point?
The Letter Of 8 June 2014
One of the important documents relied upon in support of the N8 billion settlement was a letter
dated 8 June 2014, said to have been written by the judgment creditors to the Honourable
Attorney-General of the Federation.
The letter purportedly stated that the judgment creditors had been kept informed of the
settlement negotiations, accepted the compromised sum of N8 billion, and were agreeable to
the money being paid into an account opened by Mr. Ulegede.
Yet questions subsequently arose concerning the provenance and treatment of that letter.
Although the letter was purportedly received by the Ministry of Justice in June 2014, subsequent
correspondence from the Ministry responding to inquiries concerning the consent did not refer to
it. Nor did Mr. Dodo, SAN, who had been briefed by the Ministry, refer to the letter when asked
whether consent had been given.
Whether those circumstances ultimately affect the weight that should be attached to the
document is a matter for the courts and the relevant legal processes. But it is plainly a matter
that deserves to be understood before the public reaches conclusions about what happened.
The Court of Appeal and the Question of Judicial Observations
The dispute subsequently proceeded through the appellate courts. At the Court of Appeal, the
panel made observations in passing that questioned the propriety of the legal representation
provided to the judgment creditors by Chief J-K Gadzama SAN. Notably, however, the
documents evidencing the authority to represent those clients were not before the particular
panel at the time, meaning the remarks were made without full knowledge of the relevant facts.
Critically, these observations did not constitute a binding finding; they were made in
circumstances where all pertinent material was not before the court. Legal representatives
involved have consistently maintained that there was no formal bar on representation and that
the court’s remarks were made without the benefit of documentation concerning changes in
client instructions.
A judicial observation made in the course of proceedings is not necessarily equivalent to a
formal finding of professional misconduct. The distinction between the ratio decidendi of a
judgment and remarks made in passing is well understood in legal practice. This then raises a
pertinent question: Can judicial comments made in earlier proceedings properly be treated as
conclusive evidence of professional misconduct in subsequent disciplinary proceedings?
The entire decision of the Court of Appeal has been appealed to the Supreme Court, where it
remains pending determination.
The Supreme Court Proceedings
Following the Court of Appeal decision, the judgment creditors re-engaged Chief J-K Gadzama
SAN, who subsequently filed proceedings at the Supreme Court. The matter has not been
heard, although an Appellants’ Brief and a motion to regularise the appeal have been filed. It is
also significant that Mr. Ulegede subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal dated 29 August
2017 and filed on 5 September 2017, purporting to withdraw the appeal on behalf of the
appellants. It is understood that this was done without the approval of at least some of the
judgment creditors and without approaching Chief J-K Gadzama SAN, who had filed the appeal.
Again, this raises a question that is difficult to ignore: Who had authority to act on behalf of the
judgment creditors at each stage of this long-running dispute?
The 2019 Federal High Court Proceedings
The history becomes even more revealing in the proceedings before the Federal High Court in
Abuja. By 2019, only seven of the 14 original judgment creditors were alive and present in court.
Five of those seven were represented by Mr. Ulegede, while Chief J-K Gadzama SAN
represented two: Elizabeth Aoughakaa and Terfa Akaagba.
The court was subsequently confronted with competing positions concerning the judgment
creditors and the eventual distribution of the judgment sum. The matter was adjourned for a
report of settlement, and the court urged Chief J-K Gadzama SAN , in his capacity as a
chartered arbitrator, to assist in achieving an amicable resolution between the lawyers.
A settlement process followed, facilitated by senior members of the profession. Then came an
important judicial development. On 19 August 2019, Justice I. E. Ekwo of the Federal High
Court made an order absolute in respect of the N8 billion garnishee sum, directing that the
money be paid into a designated account of the Federal High Court. The court further required a
disbursement schedule to be submitted for its consideration.
Two versions of the schedule subsequently emerged: one signed by Mr. Ulegede without the
signatures of Chief J-K Gadzama SAN and the first-class chiefs, and another signed by Chief
J-K Gadzama SAN and the first-class chiefs.
What Happened to the Money?
When the Federal Government subsequently indicated an intention to satisfy the judgment
through promissory notes, Chief J-K Gadzama SAN wrote to the Office of the Attorney-General
of the Federation, the Debt Management Office and the Federal Ministry of Finance in 2023 to
draw attention to the subsisting Federal High Court order directing that the judgment sum be
paid into the designated court account. Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, also subsequently discovered
at the Debt Management Office that the judgment creditors had executed a Power of Attorney in
favour of Rhema Law Partners in 2018 for the realisation of the judgment sum.
Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN then communicated with Rhema Law Partners concerning the
subsisting court order. There was also correspondence from the judgment creditors themselves
containing a disbursement schedule identifying professional fees payable to the lawyers and
other persons involved. These facts demonstrate that the professional relationship surrounding
the judgment debt was considerably more complicated than a simple narrative of one lawyer
taking another lawyer's clients.
There were multiple lawyers, multiple stages of representation, court orders, changes in
representation, powers of attorney, competing claims and a judgment sum whose administration
continued for years.
The Central Question: Misconduct Or A Professional Fee And Retainership Dispute?
The underlying controversy did not arise from an allegation that Chief J-K Gadzama SAN
defrauded a client. It did not arise from an allegation that he stole client money, and neither did it
arise from a finding that he deceived a client into retaining him. It arose principally from
competing claims concerning legal representation, authority, retainership and professional fees
surrounding the recovery of a judgment debt, and, as such, this matter is a dispute between
lawyers and not a question of misconduct. Interestingly enough, Chief J-K Gadzama SAN never
had any professional relationship with the LPDC complainant, Mr Alashi.
Chief J-K Gadzama SAN did not have a prior professional relationship with Mr. Alashi, who
subsequently brought the complaint before the LPDC. The professional relationship relevant to
the underlying matter was between Mr. Alashi and Mr. Ocha Ulegede, who had worked together
in connection with the judgment creditors. This raises an obvious question about the basis upon
which a dispute arising from that professional relationship ultimately became a disciplinary
complaint against Chief J-K Gadzama SAN. If the original disagreement concerned the
relationship, representation and professional fees involving Mr. Ulegede and Mr. Alashi, it is
important for the public to understand precisely how Chief J-K Gadzama SAN became
implicated and what specific professional duty he was alleged to have breached. That distinction
is particularly important given the documented record that he was separately instructed by
judgment creditors and had no professional relationship with Mr. Alashi from which any
competing obligation could have arisen.
The NBA Dimension
There is another piece of history that deserves consideration. A complaint concerning Chief J-K
Gadzama SAN was previously brought before the Nigerian Bar Association in 2015 by Mr.
Ulegede, who was, at the time, working with the current LPDC complainant, Mr. Alashi. The
matter was considered by the NBA, and correspondence subsequently issued by the
association did not sustain the allegation of professional wrongdoing against him. That
contemporaneous record is significant because it demonstrates that the questions surrounding
this dispute were not created by the recent disciplinary proceedings. They have been contested
for years and have previously passed through professional channels. The existence of a prior
professional process and its outcome should form part of the historical context whenever the
public assesses the present controversy.
What Should The Public Make Of All This?
It would be inappropriate for anyone outside the courts to declare that one side has finally
prevailed on every disputed issue. That is precisely why legal institutions exist. But it is equally
inappropriate to allow a complex professional dispute to be reduced to a headline that creates
an impression far broader than the underlying facts. The documentary evidence indicates that
Chief J-K Gadzama SAN acted on instructions from judgment creditors who retained him, that
he did not poach or entice clients away from another lawyer, that he did not enter into any
unlawful alliance to deprive another counsel of fees, and that the fees received by him were
approved by the relevant clients and, where applicable, the court.
There is no evidence to support allegations of fraud, forgery, undue influence or other unethical
conduct. The actions in question were taken pursuant to client instructions and court processes,
and the evidence supporting this has not been given the weight it deserves in public discourse.
The LPDC is entitled to perform its statutory function, and its decisions are entitled to respect.
But respect for an institution does not require the public to abandon critical examination of its
reasoning. Indeed, confidence in professional institutions is strengthened when their decisions
can withstand scrutiny and when the public is prepared to examine the evidence and competing
interpretations carefully.
It tells the story of a N41.8 billion judgment, reduced through a consent process to N8 billion; of
judgment creditors whose instructions and representation changed over time; of competing
lawyers and professional fee claims; of multiple court proceedings; of a 2019 Federal High
Court order concerning the custody and disbursement of the judgment sum; of subsequent
efforts to ensure compliance with that order; and of years of professional disagreement that
ultimately found its way into disciplinary proceedings.
Against that background, the central question deserves to be asked carefully: Was the conduct
at issue truly a case of professional misconduct warranting a three-year suspension, or did a
complicated dispute over retainership, representation and professional fees become something
considerably larger in the disciplinary process?
That is a question for the appropriate legal processes to ultimately resolve. For the public,
however, one thing is already clear. There is considerably more to this story than the headline,
and before a man's professional reputation, built over decades, is defined by a single
disciplinary decision, the public deserves the opportunity to understand the whole story.
By Kachi E. Agwu
Legal Analyst
0 Comments