A closer look at the Benue judgment, competing retainerships, the N8bn consent judgment and the professional dispute that reached the LPDC.
By Kachi E. Agwu
Abuja, Nigeria — Recent public discussion surrounding the decision involving Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee has generated considerable interest within the legal profession and among members of the public.
The disciplinary decision concerns a long-running legal dispute connected to a judgment arising from events in Benue State, subsequent proceedings relating to the enforcement of that judgment, questions concerning legal representation and retainership, an N8bn consent judgment and competing positions among legal practitioners involved in the matter.
A proper understanding of the matter requires consideration of the history of the litigation and the various court and professional proceedings that followed.
The origin: N41.8bn judgment
In October 2001, military operations took place in communities across four Local Government Areas of Benue State.
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 N41.8bn.
An appeal followed in 2008. It was during the subsequent proceedings that questions concerning representation, settlement and enforcement of the judgment debt emerged.
How the professional dispute developed
Mr Ocha P. Ulegede represented the 14 plaintiffs at the Federal High Court and took steps in connection with enforcement of the judgment.
Following the prolonged litigation, some of the judgment creditors subsequently engaged other legal representation in connection with efforts to recover the judgment debt.
Available documents indicate that Mr Ulegede was subsequently informed by letters of changes concerning the representation of some of the judgment creditors.
Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, was subsequently engaged by some of the judgment creditors in connection with recovery of the judgment sum.
However, an N8bn consent judgment had already been entered on 2 February 2015, following Terms of Settlement dated 23 January 2015 and filed on 30 January 2015.
Court records indicate that the Terms of Settlement were not signed by the 14 judgment creditors.
The circumstances surrounding the settlement subsequently became part of the broader legal dispute.
The June 8, 2014 letter
One of the documents referred to in connection with the N8bn settlement is a letter dated 8 June 2014 addressed to the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The document indicated that the judgment creditors had been involved in discussions concerning settlement and expressed a position concerning the N8bn sum and its payment.
Questions were subsequently raised during the legal proceedings concerning the document and the circumstances surrounding its consideration.
The significance and evidential weight of the document remain matters to be considered within the appropriate legal processes.
It would therefore be inappropriate to draw conclusions beyond what has been established by the relevant courts or professional bodies.
Court of Appeal proceedings
The dispute subsequently proceeded through the appellate courts.
During proceedings at the Court of Appeal, the panel made observations concerning aspects of the legal representation of the judgment creditors.
The parties have, however, maintained differing positions concerning the circumstances in which the representation was undertaken and the documents relating to instructions from the judgment creditors.
The distinction between judicial observations and binding findings is important when considering the history of the case.
The Court of Appeal’s decision has also been taken to the Supreme Court, where the matter remains pending determination.
Consequently, issues that remain before the Supreme Court should not be treated as finally settled.
Supreme Court proceedings
Following the Court of Appeal proceedings, Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, subsequently represented some of the judgment creditors in proceedings before the Supreme Court.
An Appellants’ Brief and a motion seeking to regularise the appeal were filed.
A Notice of Withdrawal dated 29 August 2017 and filed on 5 September 2017 was also filed in the proceedings.
The circumstances surrounding the filing and authority for the withdrawal subsequently formed part of the wider disagreement concerning representation of the judgment creditors.
The competing positions remain part of the broader legal history of the matter.
The 2019 Federal High Court proceedings
By 2019, seven of the original 14 judgment creditors were alive and participating in the proceedings.
Five were represented by Mr Ulegede, while Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, represented Elizabeth Aoughakaa and Terfa Akaagba.
The Federal High Court was subsequently presented with different positions concerning the judgment creditors and the proposed distribution of the judgment sum.
The court adjourned the matter for a report of settlement and encouraged efforts towards resolving the differences between the lawyers involved.
A settlement process subsequently followed with the participation of senior members of the legal profession.
On 19 August 2019, Justice I. E. Ekwo of the Federal High Court made an order absolute concerning the N8bn garnishee sum.
The court directed that the money be paid into a designated account of the Federal High Court and required a disbursement schedule to be presented for consideration.
Two versions of a proposed schedule subsequently emerged, reflecting the different positions of the parties involved.
Subsequent developments
When the Federal Government later indicated an intention to satisfy the judgment through promissory notes, Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, wrote to relevant government authorities in 2023 concerning the existing Federal High Court order relating to the judgment sum.
Correspondence also followed concerning representation of the judgment creditors and the administration of the judgment debt.
Documents relating to a Power of Attorney executed in favour of Rhema Law Partners in 2018 also became part of the subsequent discussions.
The judgment creditors also produced correspondence concerning the proposed distribution of the judgment sum and professional fees.
The history therefore involves several lawyers, different stages of representation, court proceedings, changes in instructions and documents concerning the administration of the judgment debt.
The central professional question
At the centre of the disciplinary proceedings is a disagreement concerning professional representation, retainership and fees arising from the recovery of the judgment debt.
Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, did not have a professional relationship with Mr Alashi, who subsequently brought the complaint before the LPDC.
The professional relationships relevant to the underlying dispute involved other lawyers and the judgment creditors.
The circumstances in which the dispute subsequently resulted in disciplinary proceedings involving Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, are therefore an important part of the matter’s history.
Determining the professional obligations arising from the various retainerships and instructions is ultimately a matter for the relevant legal institutions and courts.
The NBA dimension
The matter also has an earlier professional history.
A complaint concerning Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, was previously brought before the Nigerian Bar Association in 2015 by Mr Ulegede.
The matter was considered within the professional framework of the association, with subsequent correspondence issued concerning the complaint.
That earlier process provides additional context to the history of the disagreement and demonstrates that questions surrounding the matter had been considered within professional channels before the subsequent LPDC proceedings.
What should the public make of the decision?
The LPDC has a statutory responsibility to consider professional disciplinary matters involving legal practitioners, and its decisions are subject to the applicable legal processes.
At the same time, the history of this matter demonstrates why the dispute cannot easily be understood by reference to a single development.
The case involves a N41.8bn judgment, an N8bn consent judgment, changes in legal representation, competing positions concerning retainership and professional fees, several court proceedings and subsequent disagreements concerning the administration of the judgment sum.
Some of the issues have also continued through appellate proceedings.
It is therefore important to distinguish between matters that have been finally determined, matters that remain under consideration and positions advanced by the respective parties.
The disciplinary decision should be considered within that wider legal history rather than in isolation.
The central issue is whether the conduct considered by the LPDC, viewed against the documentary record and the applicable professional rules, justified the sanction imposed.
That question is ultimately one for the appropriate legal processes.
For the public, however, the case offers a reminder that complex professional disputes often involve several layers of litigation, representation and competing legal positions.
A careful examination of the available court records and professional proceedings is therefore necessary before drawing conclusions about the individuals involved or the wider circumstances surrounding the N8bn settlement.
By Kachi E. Agwu
Legal Analyst
Never miss a moment! Get the stories shaping Nigeria, delivered straight to your phone. Follow Peoplesdaily Newspaper on WhatsApp for breaking news, exclusive reports, and the headlines everyone will be talking about, before anyone else.
