A few days ago, it was announced by the LPPC (i.e. the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee the body responsible for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) upon deserving legal practitioners who have satisfied existing criteria for the award of the exalted rank) that Mr. Michael Kaase Aondoakaa SAN has been stripped of the said rank for a period of six months pending the determination of a petition lodged, which alleged, misconduct on the part of  Aondoakaa (SAN) whilst occupying the office of Attorney-General of the Federation between 2007and 2009.

The rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria 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 creature of section 5 of the Legal Practitioners Act, which specifies the way and manner a legal practitioner can be conferred with the rank of SAN.

• Mr. Aondoakaa (SAN) was former 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 Mr. Aondoakaa’s use of the rank of SAN for six months until the petition is resolved one way or the other. 
The critical issue(s) here
The issue here is not whether Mr. Aondoakaa (SAN) is guilty of the allegations contained in the petition the basis of the suspension of the rank of (SAN) which he wears. It is (1) whether the LPPC has ab initio the powers to strip him of the said rank? (2) Whether the LPPC has in the present circumstances the powers to suspend Aondoakaa (SAN) of the said rank?

• 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 Senior Advocate of Nigeria. See 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. The Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee 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.

• On the 2nd 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.

CONCLUSION

The NBA concludes this release by advising the LPPC to have a 2nd look at the matter and to reverse itself on the steps it has taken so far. From all indication, 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.

•Joseph Bodunrin Daudu SAN President NBA