By Innocent Anaba & Ben Agande
LAGOS—NIGERIAN Bar Association, NBA, yesterday, faulted the decision of the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee, LPPC, to suspend former Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Michael Aondoakaa, from use of the rank.

The association said the committee, which is responsible for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, did not follow due process.

NBA President, Mr. Joseph Daudu, SAN, in a statement, said the LPPC should have a second look at the matter and reverse itself on steps it has taken so far.

The statement said: “From all indications, the personality, subject matter of the LPPC’s actions is not loved by most legal practitioners and Nigerians; but whether saint or villain, the rule of law is constant and on this occasion as with others, the NBA chooses to err on the side of the rule of law.

“A few days ago, it was announced by the LPPC, the body responsible for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria upon deserving legal practitioners, who have satisfied existing criteria for the award of the exalted rank, that Aondoakaa has been stripped of the said rank for a period of six months pending the determination of a petition lodged, which alleged, misconduct on his part whilst occupying the office of Attorney_General of the Federation between 2007-2009.

“The rank of SAN occupies a central position in the professional career ladder of legal practitioners; hence any issue relating to the rank usually attracts intense debate among stakeholders and even curious observers.

“Before proceeding further, it is necessary to state that the following facts are not in dispute. The LPPC is chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, it is a creation of section five of the Legal Practitioners Act, which specifies the way and manner a legal practitioner can be conferred with the rank of SAN.

“Aondoakaa was formerly Attorney General of Nigeria and not particularly liked by members of the Bar and outsiders because he was seen as exceedingly partisan in the discharge of the functions of his office.

“There is at the moment a petition which has led, in the interim, to the suspension of Aondoakaa’s use of the rank of SAN for six months until the petition is resolved one way or the other.

The critical issues include, whether Aondoakaa is guilty of the allegations contained in the petition the basis of the suspension of the rank of SAN which he wears. It is whether the LPPC has, ab initio, the powers to strip him of the said rank? And whether the LPPC has, in the present circumstances, the powers to suspend Aondoakaa of the said rank?

Implicit powers to remove appointees

“It has been argued by those who support the actions of the LPPC that any body that is empowered to appoint expressly possess implicit powers to remove its appointees from office. See section 11-(1)-(a)-(c) of the Interpretation Act.

“However, the Legal Practitioners Act under the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (the special provision displaces the general) does not envisage a withdrawal, removal or suspension of the rank of SAN by section 5-(1)-(8) and 6 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Except in circumstances set out in sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The long and short of the foregoing is that from its conception, the rank of SAN is a leadership position.

“It is conferred only on persons who have shown exemplary character as well as distinction in advocacy. Consequently it can only be taken away where another statutory body the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee adjudges the person accused of infamous conduct or breach of any of the rules of professional conduct (which the petition alleges that Aondoakaa has breached in this case) guilty.

“LPPC, notwithstanding, its eminent membership cannot and is not equipped to deal with matters of discipline. Its present foray in looking at matters of the discipline of a lawyer under the guise of suspending a person of the rank of SAN is ultra vires, illegal, unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

By way of illustration the Privileges Committee has never considered a petition alleging indiscipline made against prospective candidates for the conferment of SAN. It recognises its lack of powers to do so. What it does is to forward such petitions to the Disciplinary Committee for actions.

My faith in Nigeria unshaken —Aondoakaa

In his first reaction since he was stripped of his title as the Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the former Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Michael Aondoakaa, said that despite his current travails, his faith in Nigeria and the judiciary remained unshaken.

In a statement signed by his Special Assistant, Onov Tyuluugh and made available to Vanguard, yesterday, Aondoakaa said he was a victim of “an orchestrated campaign of calumny” because he enthroned the culture of rule of law while serving as the country’s Attorney general and Minister of Justice.

The statement said: “Aondoakaa was a public officer who, while serving as Attorney_General and Minister of Justice, enthroned the culture of rule of law in this country.

“Despite the orchestrated campaign of calumny, Aondoakaa’s faith in this country and in the judiciary remains unshaken. Aondoakaa firmly believes that, every evil done by man against man will be redressed, if not by man, certainly by God. If not now then, certainly later.”

“On the second issue, the NBA regrets that the action of the LPPC herein is fundamentally flawed. A petition is a mere allegation which carries with it the presumption that the object is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

It is condemnable to punish a person with the full weight of the law, i.e. suspension or temporary stripping of the rank of SAN and public odium attached to it and at the same time admit that the petition has not been proved. The NBA is appalled that elementary principles of law and procedure have been bypassed in this instance.

“We stand for the promotion of the rule of law and regardless of the personality of the person involved herein, we cannot acquiesce to a situation where a person, legal practitioner and senior advocate, is punished even before the allegations are established against him, more so, by a body that clearly has no jurisdiction to inquire into matters of alleged breach of professional ethics.

The danger here, if not confronted, is that every senior advocate is now subject to the purported disciplinary jurisdiction of the LPPC. Unless and until the laws are changed, the power to discipline a legal practitioner, silk and non silk alike, is vested exclusively in the LPDC.”