APPEALS FROM LPDC POST MENE-EJEGI: JURISDICTIONAL GAP AND ROAD TO REFORM

By Raphael Christopher

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ben Mene-Ejegi v Nigerian Bar Association & Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, SC/481/2018, delivered on 26 June 2026, has fundamentally altered the architecture of appeals arising from disciplinary proceedings against Nigerian legal practitioners. By a 5–2 majority, the Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the LPDC and declared section 12(7) of the Legal Practitioners Act invalid to the extent that it purports to confer such jurisdiction.

The decision must, however, be understood against the recent history of uncertainty.

In Osuji v LPDC (2025), the Supreme Court had already held that an LPDC direction should first be challenged before the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers, with an appeal to the Supreme Court arising thereafter from the Appeal Committee’s decision.

Mene-Ejegi went further. The majority approached the matter constitutionally: section 233 of the Constitution confines the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to appeals from the Court of Appeal, and ordinary legislation cannot enlarge that constitutional jurisdiction. The Court consequently departed from Okike v LPDC, which had recognised a direct appeal from the LPDC to the Supreme Court.

THE PROBLEM

The immediate difficulty is practical. If the LPDC makes a direction affecting a practitioner’s right to practise, where exactly should that practitioner go?

The Mene-Ejegi majority identified the constitutionally permissible route as one through the Court of Appeal, but the existing statutory architecture has historically contemplated the Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers as an intermediate appellate body.

This creates an important transitional and legislative question: what is the precise appellate route from an LPDC direction under the law as it now stands?

There is also an institutional concern. The legal profession cannot operate comfortably where a disciplinary sanction may take effect while the statutory mechanism for challenging it remains uncertain.

The significance of this issue is reflected by the Body of Benchers’ recent decision to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on LPDC appeals, following Mene-Ejegi.

THE WAY FORWARD

I make the following suggestions for serious consideration.

First, clarify the appellate hierarchy legislatively: The Legal Practitioners Act should expressly establish the route from LPDC decisions to the Court of Appeal, in a manner consistent with sections 233 and 240 of the Constitution.

Second, remove conflicting statutory provisions: Section 12(7), having been declared constitutionally ineffective to the extent identified by the Supreme Court, should be reviewed so that practitioners are not left navigating conflicting provisions.

Third, preserve an internal professional review mechanism where appropriate: The Appeal Committee of the Body of Benchers could potentially remain as a clearly defined internal review mechanism, provided its relationship with the constitutionally recognised appellate jurisdiction is precisely articulated.

Fourth, provide transitional provisions: Legislation or appropriate procedural rules should address pending LPDC matters, existing Appeal Committee proceedings, recently concluded directions and appeals filed under the previous understanding of the law.

Fifth, protect fair hearing and access to justice: Disciplinary proceedings concern both professional standards and the livelihood and reputation of practitioners. An effective appellate system must therefore provide timely review, transparent procedures, competent adjudication and meaningful access to the courts.

A LESSON IN LEGAL SYSTEM DESIGN

The deeper lesson from Mene-Ejegi is that disciplinary justice requires more than disciplinary power; it requires a coherent appellate architecture.

The law must tell the practitioner clearly:

Who hears the complaint?
Who reviews the decision?
Where does the appeal lie?
What is the time limit?
What happens pending appeal?
And ultimately, which constitutional court has jurisdiction?

Uncertainty at any of these points can undermine confidence in the disciplinary system.

The present moment therefore provides an opportunity—not merely to repair an appellate route, but to redesign it.

A profession that regulates itself must also provide a clear, fair and constitutionally secure pathway for those who challenge its decisions.

The future of professional discipline should not merely be about enforcing standards; it should be about building a system in which accountability and justice travel together.

#LegalProfession #LPDC #LegalDiscipline #NigerianLaw #Appeals #LegalReform #RuleOfLaw #ADR #Justice

Dr. Raphael Christopher is a Member of the Nigerian Bar Association and CEO of Just Arbitration Worldwide.

Leave a Reply