Home Cover

NJC issues policy directions to end confusion on politically related cases

May 12, 2022

in Cover

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

The directive bans courts of coordinate jurisdiction meddling in matters outside their jurisdiction
*Fderal and FCT High Courts now to hear cases requiring cross-jurisdiction

By Ezechukwu Chidozie

The National Judicial Council (NJC), has issued Policy Directions on Political and Election Related Cases to heads of courts in the country.

This is part of concerted efforts to eliminate drastically, incidences of issuance of conflicting orders and judgments capable of distrupting the on-going electioneering process.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, presided over a meeting wheres the policy directions were formulated, according to Barr. Soji Oye, the Director, Information at the NJC.

Under the new directive, heads of courts are henceforth to be held responsible for lapses in their areas of jurisdiction.

Oye on Wednesday in Abuja stated that the policy direction was formulated at the 98th meeting of the NJC held on 10th and 11th of May, under the Chairmanship of the CJN, Justice Muhammad.

He stated: “Pursuant to the powers vested in the National Judicial Council by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Schedule III, Part I, 21 (i), a new policy direction is hereby issued.

“These Policy Directions shall apply to all suits filed in any court in Nigeria wherein the parties include Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), any political party or its officers, any other person, natural or legal, suing or sued for a declaration in relation to any action taken or to compel or restrain any action or omission with respect to the affairs of a political party or any election into a public office.

“These Directions seek to: prevent the multiplicity of litigations at different courts of coordinate jurisdiction across the nation, resulting in conflicting orders on the same issues and facts;

“Recognise that courts need to embrace prudential limitations on their powers with a view to curtailing the incidences of unscrupulous forum shopping disrupting the administration of justice and the democratic process; and

“Acknowledge that the circumstances necessitate further administrative measures and procedures to complement and support the judicial process.

“All suits to which these Policy Directions apply shall be filed, received, or entertained only at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in so far as the relief sought, or potential consequential order(s) or declaration(s) may restrain or compel persons or actions beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any one State;

“Where such suits are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, they shall be filed or received at Abuja and assigned by the Chief Judge of the Court;

“All such suits wherein the cause of action arose in a state and the relief seeks a declaration or to compel or restrain person(s), natural or legal, within that dtate’s territory, with no consequence outside the state, shall be filed, received, or heard only in that state;

“All Heads of Court shall assign cases or constitute panels with a view to forestalling the incidences of conflicting judgements and rulings;

“Once facts or issues have been ruled upon, no other court or panel of coordinate jurisdiction shall be assigned or entertain suits on the same subject matter and parties shall comply or proceed on appeal to the appropriate higher Court;

“Rules of court shall require sufficient notice and publicity of actions that potentially impact other cases;

“Rules of court shall stipulate solemn disclosure duties on litigants filing actions that may impact other actions.

“Heads of court shall exercise their rule making and administrative powers to give effect to these policy directions.

2023: Jonathan finally makes up his mind to join APC Presidential race – NAN

2023: PDP throws gate open, jettisons zoning

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 ...