•Benue judgment, competing retainerships, the N8bn consent judgment and the professional dispute that eventually reached the LPDC
By Kachi E. Agwu, Legal Analyst
ABUJA, Nigeria — The recent decision of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) against Chief J.K. Gadzama, SAN, has generated considerable public attention, with headlines around the disciplinary sanction inevitably creating an impression of grave professional wrongdoing.
But behind the headline lies a far longer and more complicated legal history — one involving a N41.8 billion judgment arising from one of the most tragic episodes in Benue State, an N8 billion consent judgment, competing claims of legal representation and retainership, multiple court proceedings, professional fee disputes and years of disagreement among lawyers representing the judgment creditors.
At the heart of the controversy is a question that has not received sufficient attention in the public discourse: Was the matter fundamentally one of professional misconduct, or was it a complex dispute over representation, retainership, authority and professional fees that ultimately found its way into disciplinary proceedings?
The answer requires a reconstruction of the chronology.
The N41.8bn Origin
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 professional dispute which would eventually culminate in the LPDC proceedings began to take shape.
How the Dispute Began
Mr Ocha P. Ulegede had represented the 14 plaintiffs at the Federal High Court and had taken steps towards garnisheeing the judgment sum.
Following years of delay in the appellate process, some of the judgment creditors explored alternative means of persuading the Federal Government to settle the judgment debt.
According to the available documents, Mr Ulegede was subsequently debriefed through letters by the judgment creditors.
Meanwhile, some of the judgment creditors briefed Chief J-K Gadzama, SAN, to pursue recovery of the judgment sum through garnishee proceedings.
However, a significant development had already occurred.
On February 2, 2015, a consent judgment for N8 billion had been entered on the basis of Terms of Settlement dated January 23, 2015, and filed on January 30, 2015.
Court records indicate that none of the 14 judgment creditors signed the Terms of Settlement.
Chief Gadzama only became aware of the N8 billion settlement when he sought to pursue recovery of the original N41.8 billion judgment and encountered garnishee proceedings seeking to recover the N8 billion.
That development immediately raised two fundamental questions:
Who authorised the compromise of a N41.8 billion judgment to N8 billion? And who had authority to act for the judgment creditors at that stage?
The June 8, 2014 Letter
One of the documents relied upon in support of the N8 billion settlement was a letter dated June 8, 2014, purportedly written by the judgment creditors to the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The letter purportedly stated that the judgment creditors had been kept informed of settlement negotiations, accepted the N8 billion compromise and agreed that the money should be paid into an account opened by Mr Ulegede.
Questions subsequently arose, however, concerning the provenance and treatment of the document.
Although the letter was purportedly received by the Ministry of Justice in June 2014, subsequent correspondence from the Ministry responding to inquiries about the consent did not refer to it.
Similarly, Mr Dodo, SAN, who had been briefed by the Ministry, did not refer to the letter when asked whether consent had been given.
Whether those circumstances ultimately affect the evidential weight to be attached to the document remains a matter for the courts and relevant legal processes.
But they form part of the chronology and are important to understanding the controversy before conclusions are drawn about what happened.
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 questioning the propriety of the legal representation provided to the judgment creditors by Chief Gadzama, SAN.
However, the documents evidencing the authority to represent the clients were not before that particular panel at the time.
Consequently, the observations were made without the benefit of the complete documentation concerning the changes in client instructions.
Importantly, the observations did not constitute a binding finding of professional misconduct. Legal representatives involved in the matter have consistently maintained that there was no formal bar on the representation and that the court’s remarks were made without the benefit of documentation concerning changes in client instructions.
The distinction is significant.
A judicial observation made in the course of proceedings is not automatically equivalent to a formal finding of professional misconduct. In legal practice, there is a recognised distinction between the ratio decidendi of a judgment and remarks made in passing.
That raises another important question: Can observations made during earlier proceedings, in circumstances where all relevant material was not before the court, subsequently be treated as conclusive evidence of professional misconduct?
The entire Court of Appeal decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court, where the matter remains pending determination.
The Supreme Court Proceedings
Following the Court of Appeal decision, the judgment creditors re-engaged Chief Gadzama, SAN, who subsequently filed proceedings at the Supreme Court.
The matter has not been heard. However, an Appellants’ Brief and a motion to regularise the appeal have been filed.
Another development subsequently complicated the picture.
Mr Ulegede filed a Notice of Withdrawal dated August 29, 2017, and filed on September 5, 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 Gadzama, who had filed the appeal.
Again, the question of authority comes into sharp focus:
Who had authority to act on behalf of the judgment creditors at each stage of the prolonged dispute?
The 2019 Federal High Court Proceedings
The chronology becomes even more significant in the proceedings before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
By 2019, only seven of the original 14 judgment creditors were alive and present in court.
Five of the seven were represented by Mr Ulegede, while Chief Gadzama represented two — Elizabeth Aoughakaa and Terfa Akaagba.
The court was 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, while the court urged Chief Gadzama, in his capacity as a chartered arbitrator, to assist in achieving an amicable resolution between the lawyers.
A settlement process subsequently followed, facilitated by senior members of the legal profession.
Then came a crucial judicial development.
On August 19, 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 directed that a disbursement schedule be submitted for its consideration.
Two versions of the schedule subsequently emerged.
One was signed by Mr Ulegede without the signatures of Chief Gadzama and the first-class chiefs.
The other was signed by Chief Gadzama and the first-class chiefs.
What Happened to the Money?
The controversy did not end there.
When the Federal Government subsequently indicated its intention to satisfy the judgment through promissory notes, Chief Gadzama wrote to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Debt Management Office and the Federal Ministry of Finance in 2023.
His correspondence drew attention to the subsisting Federal High Court order directing that the judgment sum be paid into the designated court account.
Chief Gadzama 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.
He 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 developments demonstrate the complexity of the professional relationships surrounding the judgment debt.
This was not simply a case of one lawyer taking another lawyer’s clients.
There were multiple lawyers, multiple stages of representation, changes in instructions, court orders, powers of attorney, competing professional fee claims and a judgment sum whose administration continued for years.
Misconduct or Professional Fee and Retainership Dispute?
This is arguably the central question in the controversy.
The underlying dispute did not arise from an allegation that Chief Gadzama defrauded a client.
It did not arise from an allegation that he stole client funds.
Nor did it arise from a finding that he deceived a client into retaining him.
Rather, the controversy principally concerned competing claims relating to legal representation, authority, retainership and professional fees surrounding the recovery of a judgment debt.
There is another significant fact.
Chief Gadzama had no 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.
That raises a question about how a dispute arising from that professional relationship ultimately became a disciplinary complaint against Chief Gadzama.
If the original disagreement concerned the relationship, representation and professional fees involving Mr Ulegede and Mr Alashi, it becomes important to establish precisely how Chief Gadzama became implicated and what specific professional duty he was alleged to have breached.
That distinction matters because the available record indicates that Chief Gadzama was separately instructed by judgment creditors and had no professional relationship with Mr Alashi from which a competing professional obligation could have arisen.
The Earlier NBA Complaint
There is also an earlier professional history that deserves consideration.
A complaint concerning Chief Gadzama was previously brought before the Nigerian Bar Association in 2015 by Mr Ulegede, who at the time was working with the current LPDC complainant, Mr Alashi.
The matter was considered by the NBA.
Correspondence subsequently issued by the association did not sustain the allegation of professional wrongdoing against Chief Gadzama.
That contemporaneous record is significant because it demonstrates that the issues surrounding the dispute are not new.
They have been contested for years and have previously passed through professional channels.
The existence and outcome of that earlier professional process therefore form part of the historical context against which the present disciplinary controversy should be examined.
What Should the Public Make of the LPDC Decision?
The LPDC is entitled to perform its statutory function, and its decisions are entitled to respect.
But respect for a professional institution does not mean that the public must abandon critical examination of the reasoning behind its decisions.
Indeed, confidence in professional institutions is strengthened when their decisions can withstand scrutiny and when the public is able to examine the evidence and competing interpretations surrounding a dispute.
It would equally be inappropriate for anyone outside the courts to declare that every disputed issue has been finally resolved in favour of one side.
That is precisely why legal institutions exist.
But it is also inappropriate for a complex professional dispute to be reduced to a headline that creates an impression considerably broader than the underlying facts.
The documentary record, as presented, indicates that Chief Gadzama 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 an unlawful arrangement 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, according to the material presented, no evidence establishing fraud, forgery, undue influence or other unethical conduct.
The actions in question were taken pursuant to client instructions and court processes, while the evidence supporting that position remains subject to consideration in the appropriate legal processes.
The Bigger Picture
The story is ultimately about much more than the headline figure of a three-year suspension.
It is the story of a N41.8 billion judgment arising from a tragic episode in Benue State; a judgment subsequently reduced through a consent process to N8 billion; judgment creditors whose instructions and legal representation changed over time; competing lawyers and professional fee claims; multiple court proceedings; a 2019 Federal High Court order concerning the custody and disbursement of the judgment sum; subsequent efforts to ensure compliance with that order; and years of professional disagreement that eventually found their way into disciplinary proceedings.
Against that background, the central question deserves to be examined carefully:
Was the conduct at issue genuinely a case of professional misconduct warranting a three-year suspension, or did a complicated dispute over retainership, representation, authority and professional fees become something considerably larger in the disciplinary process?
That question remains for the appropriate legal processes to ultimately resolve.
But for the public, one point is difficult to ignore: there is considerably more to the Gadzama matter than the headline.
And before a professional reputation built over decades is defined by a single disciplinary decision, the public deserves to understand the entire chronology, the competing claims and the documentary record surrounding the case.
Century Herald
