The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, LPDC has suspended Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Joe Kyari Gadzama, from legal practice for three years, while another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, was barred for two years over professional misconduct linked to the handling of the Zaki Biam compensation matter.
The disciplinary action followed a petition lodged by legal practitioner, Chris Alashi, prompting the committee to investigate the conduct of the two lawyers in relation to the disputed settlement of compensation awarded to victims of the 2001 Zaki Biam military operation.
Delivering the committee’s decision, Justice Halima Ibrahim held that both lawyers violated provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023.
The LPDC ordered that Ulegede’s two-year suspension and Gadzama’s three-year suspension take immediate effect. It further directed the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court to circulate the decision to all heads of superior courts of record across the country, while the Inspector-General of Police is also to be formally notified of the sanctions.
The dispute stems from litigation instituted after a military crackdown in Zaki Biam and neighbouring communities in Benue State in October 2001, following the killing of 19 soldiers. The operation reportedly left hundreds of civilians dead and destroyed several homes and properties.
Survivors of the incident, together with other affected persons, instituted an action before the Federal High Court in Enugu, seeking compensation for alleged violations of their fundamental rights and the destruction caused by the military operation.
In July 2007, the court awarded the claimants N41.8 billion in damages. Although the Federal Government initially appealed the judgement, both sides later entered negotiations and reportedly agreed to reduce the compensation to N8 billion.
Controversy, however, arose after reports indicated that the agreed sum would be paid through the Benue State Government under the administration of former Governor Gabriel Suswam.
The claimants and some members of their legal team opposed the arrangement, insisting that payment should be made directly to the beneficiaries since the state government was not a party to the suit and the proposed settlement had not been endorsed by the court.
(Follow AIT News on WhatsApp, AfricaIndependentTV on YouTube, ait_online on Facebook and X (Formerly Twitter), and officialait on TikTok, Instagram and Threads)
(Editor: Terverr Tyav)
