The decision of the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC) to suspend the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) rank of prominent lawyer, Prof. Mike Ozekhome, has sparked fresh controversy, with a group of lawyers demanding that the suspension be withdrawn until the conclusion of the criminal case against him.
The lawyers, under the umbrella of the Association of Legislative Drafting and Advocacy Practitioners (ALDRAP), argued that the LPPC acted prematurely because the matter involving Ozekhome is already before a court of law.
They insisted that taking disciplinary action while the criminal case is still pending violates the legal principle of sub judice, which discourages actions or public comments capable of interfering with matters before the courts.
The LPPC had announced Ozekhome’s suspension after its 173rd General Meeting held on June 23, 2026.
In a statement signed by the Secretary of the LPPC and Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Kabir Akanbi, the committee said the decision was taken to protect the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
The committee explained that the suspension was in line with Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria and would remain in effect pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee.
Ozekhome is currently facing prosecution in a case initially filed by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), but which has since been taken over by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).
Although the criminal trial is still ongoing before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, the LPPC proceeded with the suspension, a move that has now attracted criticism from members of the legal profession.
In a Freedom of Information (FOI) request addressed to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), who serves as Chairman of the LPPC, and the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, who is also Secretary of the committee, ALDRAP demanded the legal basis for the suspension.
The request, signed by the association’s Administrative Secretary, Jesse Williams Amuga, also sought both electronic and hard copies of the minutes of the LPPC’s 173rd meeting during which the decision was taken.
According to the lawyers, the suspension raises serious legal concerns because the issues are already before a competent court.
“In furtherance of our primary objective of demanding accountability by both institutions and officials of government, we respectfully request details of the legal basis and rationale for the suspension of Prof. Mike Ozekhome,” the association stated.
It added that its request was made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011.
The lawyers maintained that any legal practitioner with a basic understanding of the law would recognise that the LPPC’s decision could prejudice the ongoing criminal proceedings.
“Any Nigerian lawyer with a rudimentary knowledge of law understands that the decision of the LPPC to suspend Prof. Mike Ozekhome is prejudicial and against the sub judice rule, considering that there is an ongoing lawsuit against him by the ICPC that commenced in February 2026 at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja,” the association stated.
ALDRAP also warned that it would not hesitate to seek judicial intervention if the LPPC failed to honour its request.
The association said it would instruct its lawyers to institute legal proceedings to enforce its rights under the Freedom of Information Act if access to the requested documents was denied.
“Take notice that in the event that our request is not granted, the LPPC would leave us with no other option than to instruct our lawyers to file a lawsuit to assert the legal rights of our association,” the letter stated.
Beyond the FOI request, the association has also petitioned the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, urging the continental body to intervene over what it described as actions capable of undermining the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary.
According to ALDRAP, the LPPC has repeatedly ignored the principle of *sub judice* by making public decisions on issues that are already the subject of pending court cases.
The association cited an earlier incident in February 2026 when, despite a pending lawsuit involving the LPPC and its Secretary, Kabir Akanbi, the committee allegedly issued a public statement touching on matters that were still before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The lawyers claimed the statement was released on February 12, 2026, while judgment in the case was eventually delivered on May 13, 2026.
They added that the matter has since proceeded to the Court of Appeal.
ALDRAP further alleged that on June 23, 2026, the LPPC issued two separate statements relating to matters already before the courts.
According to the association, one statement announced the list of 89 shortlisted candidates for the conferment of the SAN rank, while the second announced Ozekhome’s suspension.
The lawyers argued that such actions create the impression that the committee is making decisions on issues that remain subject to judicial determination.
To support its position, ALDRAP cited the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986), in which the apex court stressed that government officials and public institutions should refrain from taking unilateral actions while legal proceedings are pending.
According to the association, the judgment established that public authorities should respect the judicial process rather than resort to what it described as self-help.
“There are a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court of Nigeria such as Governor of Lagos State vs. Ojukwu (1986) wherein it was stated that government officials and institutions should not resort to self-help but rather should await the outcome of judicial proceedings when they are involved in ongoing lawsuits,” the letter stated.
The lawyers argued that observing the principle is essential for preserving public confidence in the rule of law and the administration of justice.
They therefore appealed to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to intervene and encourage the LPPC to refrain from actions that could undermine ongoing judicial proceedings.
The controversy has drawn attention to the powers of the LPPC, the body responsible for recommending lawyers for the prestigious SAN rank and enforcing disciplinary standards relating to holders of the title.
While the committee maintains that its decision was necessary to protect the integrity of the rank, critics argue that disciplinary measures should not pre-empt the outcome of pending court cases.