Home Health

Why we can’t disrupt services in Enugu hospitals – NMA

November 5, 2025

in Health

Why we can’t disrupt services in Enugu hospitals – NMA

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) has stated that it cannot disrupt health services in Enugu State, following the strike by the Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors (NARD), because their renumeration and welfare have been enhanced by the state government.

The association also commended Gov. Peter Mbah for motivating healthcare workers in the state with improved remuneration.

The Chairman, NMA, Enugu State chapter, Dr. Sunday Okafor, disclosed this during a Press Conference marking the 2025 Physicians’ Week and Maiden Enugu South-East Regional Health Summit in Enugu, on Monday.

According to Okafor, “doctors in the state, under Mbah, are one of the best paid healthcare workers in the country, in terms of remuneration for medical personnel”.

He said that “health workers owed gratitude to the governor, whose vision and love to improve efficiency across the public health system and public service, had continued to be an enigma to everyone”.

He, therefore, called on the Federal Government and other governors to emulate Gov. Mbah to prioritise the welfare of health workers for improved service delivery and prevent frequent industrial actions by NARD members.

“It is on record that in the country that Enugu healthcare personnel are the highest paid and, as a parent body, we cannot disrupt health services in those areas where the governor is actually doing well.

“We allowed resident doctors in the federal hospitals in the state to embark on strike, but not in Enugu State hospitals because Gov. Mbah is motivating state health workers.

“The issue of the strike revolve around poor renumeration and welfare of health workers, so we don’t have issues with the Enugu State Government, in terms of remuneration and welfare,” Okafor stressed.

He emphasised the need for the Federal Government to resolve the issue with resident doctors so they could attend to their teeming patients.

He said that shutting down the healthcare system would disrupt social services and make patients to suffer.

He also commended Mbah for investing in healthcare infrastructure by improving primary, secondary and tertiary hospitals in the state.

“The governor is building Type II primary health centres across 260

electoral wards in Enugu State and each of them is actually being operationalised.

“NMA Enugu State chapter has continued to partner with the government because when you see the vision of the leader, you complement his efforts,” he said.

Speaking on the theme, “Healthcare as a Value Chain – Building Efficiency from Policy to Patients” for the physicians’ week, Okafor called for patient-centred policies to address health inequalities.

“So we have decided for the first time in our history to have a regional health summit, where the various heads of our health systems in the South-East will say what they were able to do to improve the healthcare system,” he said.

Insecurity: DSS updates Nigerians on prosecution of terror suspects

Oyo High Court clears PDP to hold national convention

Court orders 54 banks to return N9.3bn stolen from customers accounts

Oyo High Court clears PDP to hold national convention

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 ...