Home Education

Court adjourns suit against ASUU till Sept 16

September 12, 2022

in Education

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

The National Industrial Court on Monday adjourned the suit against the Academic Staff Union of Universities ASUU which was filed by the Minister of Labour and Employment, Chris Ngige to Friday, September 16th.

The matter, came up before Justice Polycarp Hamman of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja.

The Federal Government on Monday urged the National Industrial Court to order ASUU to call off its seven months strike.

Joined as a claimant in the matter is the Minister of Education, Adamu Adamu, with the President of ASUU, Professor Emmanuel Osodeke, as sole defendant.

When the matter slated for mention came up, human rights activist, Ebunolu Adegoruwa, SAN, informed the court that he was representing the Socio- Economic Rights and Accountability Project and that he had filed a suit on the same subject matter before the same court.

He also stated that in the suit NICN/ABJ/269/2022, SERAP was the claimant with the Federal Government as the defendant.

He, therefore, proceeded to apply that the extant suit be consolidated and SERAP be joined in the suit as a defendant, instead of multiple suits on the same matter before the same court.

Counsel to the claimant, Mr T.A Gazali, SAN, in response, said the application was premature and added that there was no need for SERAP to pray to be joined in a suit, orally, in a matter that did not have its name on the cause list.

Mr Femi Falana, SAN, counsel to ASUU, in his response, informed the court that both counsel had informed him on Monday that they were both filing some papers.

Falana, in addition, urged the court to step down the matter to enable both counsel to file their papers and then return at a later date after which he would have responded to the claimant’s process.

Adegoruwa replied that the defendant had not denied the existence of the suit SERAP filed and served on them.

Gazali, on his part, also informed the court that his process would be filed Monday, and Falana said he would need three days to reply to the process.

The judge, in his ruling, adjourned the matter until Friday, for further mention.

He also directed that the claimant should file, serve his process, and the defendant to also file and serve his response before the adjourned date.

Hamman, in addition, ruled that SERAP’s application to be joined in the suit was premature.

The suit filed by the claimant is also seeking the court to give the matter an accelerated hearing in order to bring the dispute to an end.

The claimant, also, in the instrument of referral, is praying the court to: “Inquire into the legality or otherwise of the on-going prolonged strike by ASUU leadership and members which had continued even after apprehension by the Minister of Labour and Employment.

“Interpret in its entirety the provisions of Section 18, LFN 2004 especially as it applies to cessation of strike once a trade dispute is apprehended by the Minister of Labour end Employment and conciliation is on-going”.

Police arrest gang of robbers, serial rapists in Anambra

Several ISWAP terrorists killed as Super Tucano jets raid ‘Somalia’ in Sambisa

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 ...