Home Judiciary

NJC recommends compulsory retirement of Taraba Chief Judge

March 18, 2023

in Judiciary

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

*Investigates petitions, appoints judges

The National Judicial Council (NJC) has recommended the compulsory retirement of Hon. Justice F. B. Andetur, the Chief Judge of Taraba State High Court, with immediate effect.

He was recommended for compulsory retirement following the findings of an Investigation Committee of a petition written against him by Senator Muhammed Sanusi Dagash, that the judge suppressed judgement by failing to deliver judgement in Suit No: TRSJ/134/17: Mallam Kassim Yahaya Ahmad Vs Shittu Wurmo & Shuwari Farms Limited 30 months after adoption of final addresses by the parties.

A statement by the NJC’s spokesman, Mr. Soji Oye, said the council after deliberation found that the Hon. Chief Judge breached the provisions of S.294(1) of the Constitution and therefore recommended him to Governor Darius Dickson Ishaku of Taraba State for compulsory retirement with immediate effect.

“In the interim, the Council in exercise of its disciplinary powers under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, is suspending Hon. Justice Andetur from office pending his compulsory retirement. He is to hand over to the next most senior Judge in the State,” the statement added.

Considering the report of one of its Complaints Assessment Committees, the NJC agreed with the Committee’s recommendation to empanel four Committees to further investigate four of the seven petitions forwarded to it, and dismissed three others. One of the three, was dismissed for being subjudice and the remaining two were dismissed because the Judicial Officers had retired from service, and by virtue of Rule 18(2) (h) of the National Judicial Council Judicial Discipline Regulations 2017, the Respondent Judicial Officers are no longer under the disciplinary control of the Council.

On the issue of appointment of new judges, the statement said:
“Similarly, Council considered the list of candidates presented by its Interview Committee and at the end of deliberation, recommended the appointment of six Heads of Court and five Judges of Plateau State High Court as follows:

1. CHIEF JUDGE, BENUE STATE
i) Hon. Justice Ikpambese Maurice Ahemba

2. CHIEF JUDGE, ADAMAWA STATE
i) Hon. Justice Hafsat Abdulrahman

3. CHIEF JUDGE, KWARA STATE
i) Hon. Justice Abiodun Ayodele Adebara
4. CHIEF JUDGE, OYO STATE
i) Hon. Justice Iyabo Subulade Yerima
5. GRAND KADI, SHARIA COURT OF APPEAL, ADAMAWA STATE
i) Hon. Kadi Ibrahim Wakili Sudi
6. PRESIDENT, CUSTOMARY COURT OF APPEAL, ADAMAWA STATE
i) Hon. Justice Audu James Balami

7. FIVE (5) JUDGES, HIGH COURT, PLATEAU STATE
i) Charles Donglong
ii) Ashahabu Suleiman Wase
iii) Shikamma Kassam Sheltu
iv) Mary Abah Izam
vi) Nanle Titus Komak

The NJC acknowledged receipt of the notification of retirements of eight Judicial Officers of the Federal and State Courts and notification of death of a Court of Appeal Justice.

Gov/HA Elections: Parties, candidates go to ‘war’ Saturday

140 armed thugs arrested in Enugu

Opinion

Suspension of Mike Ozekhome SAN: A Hasty Decision By The LPPC And The Prejudicial Effect Of Same

by Newsdesk Africa

June 26, 2026

By Sheriff. C. ADELE, Esq On June 23, 2026, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), at its 173rd General Meeting, approved the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The suspension, announced pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is to remain in force pending the final determination of disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. While the LPPC asserts that the suspension is intended to "safeguard the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria", this decision raises profound concerns about procedural propriety, jurisdictional overreach, and the prejudicial effect it portends for both the legal profession and the administration of justice. This article critically examines the hasty decision of the LPPC, its implications, and why it constitutes a premature verdict that undermines the very principles of natural justice the legal profession is sworn to uphold. Chief Mike Ozekhome, a prominent constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, is currently facing disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. The proceedings relate to his involvement in a controversial property dispute in the United Kingdom concerning a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London. Chief Ozekhome is also standing trial before an FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on a 12-count charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty. What is particularly significant and troubling is that the same issues before the LPPC are also pending before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of sanctioning legal practitioners for professional misconduct. The LPDC is yet to make any determination on the substantive allegations against chief Ozekhome. Yet, the LPPC has proceeded to impose a suspension that, in practical effect, constitutes a pre-determinative sanction. The Distinct Jurisdictions of the LPPC and LPDC To appreciate the gravity of the LPPC’s decision, it is essential to understand the distinct and separate roles of the LPPC and the LPDC under Nigerian law. The LPPC is a statutory body established under Section 5 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its primary function is to consider and determine eligible applicants for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the LPPC is also empowered to make rules as to the privileges to be accorded to Senior Advocates of Nigeria. While the LPPC has disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers are ancillary to its primary function of conferring and regulating the rank. The LPPC's disciplinary authority is derived from its guidelines, including Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. However, this authority is limited to matters pertaining to the rank itself and the privileges associated with it. The LPDC, by contrast, is a committee of the Body of Benchers established under Section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its mandate is far broader and more fundamental: it is the primary disciplinary body for all legal practitioners in Nigeria. The LPDC exercises jurisdiction over all lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar and is empowered to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and impose sanctions ranging from admonition to suspension and disbarment. The Critical Distinction The distinction between these two bodies is not merely academic, it is fundamental to the proper administration of justice in the legal profession. The LPPC is primarily a conferring and privilege-regulating body. The LPDC is the disciplinary body par excellence. While the LPPC may have incidental disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers cannot supplant or pre-empt the primary disciplinary jurisdiction of the LPDC. When the same issues are pending before both bodies, as they are in chief Ozekhome’s case, the LPDC’s determination on professional misconduct must logically precede any disciplinary sanction from the LPPC. The LPPC cannot independently determine facts of professional misconduct that are the exclusive province of the LPDC. The Hasty Decision: A Premature Verdict The LPPC’s decision to suspend chief Ozekhome from the rank of SAN pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is, with respect, a hasty and premature verdict that suffers from several fundamental flaws. Procedural Impropriety ...