Introduction:
While it is true that after a long period of lull in activity, the Disciplinary panels of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, have suddenly roared into life from deep seated slumber not all lawyers are genuinely impressed by this sudden burst of life by the disciplinary wing of the legal profession. The pertinent question to ask at this juncture is why the seemingly noble desire of the leadership of the Bar to cleanse the profession of unworthy and unbecoming members does not seem to generate the necessary enthusiasm from a cross section of the profession? Is it that lawyers have gotten used to the freewheeling, morally, lax practice of many a practitioner in recent times as to resist any attempt to restore sanity to the profession or do most lawyers have good reasons to distrust the current drive to instil discipline within the rank and fife of legal practitioners?
The theme of this paper "Why have we lost confidence in the process of disciplining lawyers in Nigeria? attempts to provide answers for this moral dilemma.
The Nigerian legal profession with its roots in the English Legal Profession is regarded as a learned and noble profession fit only for persons from the educated elite of great learning and high moral character. Nothing less is good enough for the Bar. To that extent the Bar has over the ages sought to ensure that legal practitioners are guided by the highest professional standards in the practice of the profession. The 2007 Rules provide that "A Lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner". So if this be the lofty objective for enforcing discipline at the Bar how come many lawyers have lost confidence in the system?
A number of reasons have been given for the lukewarm attitude of lawyers to the discipline of their colleagues, this reasons include, manifest bias by the Disciplinary authorities, the presence of Morally Compromised adjudicators on the Panels, Double standards in the treatment of erring senior and junior lawyers, improper composition of
panels, absence of due process in the conduct of the affairs of the panel, undue haste to strike out erring lawyers for the flimsiest of reasons where on the other hand lawyers who get a reprieve either do not get an apology or adequate publicity for their escape from the sledgehammer. These reasons are by no means exhaustive of the lack of enthusiasm with which lawyers treat the disciplining of their colleagues. Nonetheless, we shall examine in greater details some of the reasons alluded to above.
Biased umpires
Recently at the commencement of one of the sittings of the Appeals Tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee, the Chairman of the Committee was quoted to have made the opening remark that the Panel in recent times has been inundated with a deluge of complaints of unethical and sharp practices against lawyers particularly in the area of Lawyer/Client relationship in the area of money and the determination of the panel to deal decisively with these complaints by ridding the profession of Bad eggs. Thankfully, very seasoned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief G.O.K. Ajayi SAN in attendance on behalf of a client on the occasion was recorded to have expressed his displeasure at the punitive agenda of the panel as declared by the Chairman. Chief Ajayi SAN was quoted famously to have said "It does not matter even if there are 10,000 petitions against Legal practitioners, the fact remains that the Respondents are presumed innocent until allegations are proved. Your committee should therefore not give an impression that you are being influenced by the increasing number of petitions. It is not your business to be bothered about the number you are to do justice"
However, this admonition by the highly revered legal icon hardly seems to have had any sobering effect on the Legal Practitioners Appeal Tribunal Chairman who has consistently repeated the determination of his panel to show deviant lawyers the way out of the profession. Thus, every lawyer standing trial before the disciplinary committee attends every sitting with trepidation that his fate is sealed irrespective of probable innocence or valid defences to charges of unethical and unprofessional conduct. Certainly, there can be no confidence in such.
Disciplinary Proceedings where the practitioners on trial are presumed guilty contrary to constitutional presumption of innocence under Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution, all because of the pressure to prove to the doubting public that something is being done to dial with unethical conduct at the Bar. Yet the same profession or at least an arm of it is expected to dispense justice without fear or favour to all manner of men, but ironically is not expected to extend the same fundamental guarantees to colleagues standing trial for disciplinary proceedings many of whom have been cited unfairly by a recalcitrant and belligerent client(s).. This prevalent persecution mentality has the potential of completely eroding the confidence which lawyers have in the ability of Disciplinary tribunal to try every case dispassionately. No amount of pressure should displace the constitutional duty or\disciplinary panels to be fair to each and every complainant and respondent lawyer. As stated in the Supreme Court case of Ndu V. State. The court (by extension the Panel) has a constitution duty to be fair to all sides to a case/ be it Plaintiff or Defendant, Prosecution or Accused are entitled to a fair hearing which does not contemplate a standard if justice which is biased in favour of one party and to the prejudice of the other. Rather it imposes and ambidextrous standard of justice in which the court must be fair to both sides of the conflict".
Let every disciplinary proceeding be conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and objectivity devoid of bias or prejudice in favour or against any party.
Closely related 'to the last consideration is the presence on many of the Disciplinary panels of persons be they judicial officers or practitioner's who are disqualified by reason of one factor or another from sitting on a particular panel(s) or any panel for that matter. One will think that lawyers learned in the principles of bias and prejudice will do all in their power to ensure that persons with any disqualifying properties do not sit in judgment over others as laid down in a long time of cases. In the celebrated case of LPDC V. Fawehinmi6 the fact that the same office of the Attorney General of the Federation that laid the complaint of unprofessional misconduct was the same person to preside over the disciplinary proceedings was enough to nullify the proceedings. In another celebrated case of Denlove V. MDPDT the presence of lawyer to the complainant on the disciplinary tribunal that tried a Medical Doctor was enough to vitiate the said disciplinary proceedings while in yet another celebrated case Yesufu V. University of Maiduguri the presence of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Maiduguri who was the Chief Complainant against the students facing disciplinary proceedings as Chairman of the said disciplinary panel completely nullified such proceedings. However on the present state of the law as decided in the recent Supreme Court case of Ndukwe V. L.P.D.C.. it appears that the presence on a tribunal of a disqualified person may not necessarily vitiate the said disciplinary proceedings. This is" yet another reason for worry and lack of confidence by practitioners in the impartiality and fairness of modern day disciplinary proceedings. The point may however be made that the distinguishing facts in the Ndukwe's case is that the erring member on the panel Mr. N. Nwanodi SAN did not take part in the proceedings neither did he sign the decision of the panel, thus his mere presence was held to be insufficient to affect the substance of the panel's decision. But the pertinent question is, could he not have used his presence on the panel to influence the decision of the panel, if he had an interest in the matter? This pattern of decision is certainly worrisome and capable of overturning the well established principle against membership of disciplinary panels by members suffering one legal incapacity or the other. Another reason why lawyers no longer have no confidence in disciplinary proceedings in Nigeria. This attitude of playing down the presence of disqualified members on disciplinary panels is already playing out in some of the ongoing proceedings such as the Disciplinary proceedings between the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary proceedings and Mr. Adesina Ogunlana 9a where one of the members of the disciplinary panel recently lodged a complaint against the same Respondent over another issue. Yet the said member a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former General Secretary of the Bar saw nothing amiss in remaining a member of the disciplinary panel even while he still has a ' pending complaint against the said Respondent in another matter contrary to the elementary principle of law that a man should not be a judge in his own cause - Nemo judex in causa sua.
Related to the immediate foregoing is the role of prosecutors who are no better or even worse than the lawyers facing disciplinary proceedings. Given the seriousness of disciplinary proceedings which in appropriate cases lead to the erring lawyer being struck off the list of legal practitioners.
See Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 and the case of Okike V. LPDC (No. 2)
It is expected that lawyers saddled with the onerous responsibility of bringing deviant colleagues to book must be lawyers of the highest moral and professional integrity. Sadly, this is not always so as only recently one of the leading LPDC prosecutors Mr. Dele Oye was cited for his involvement in the ongoing Banking Industry scandal.
Earlier, although uncelebrated, one of the Counsel who had deliberately acted contrary to his client's instructions not to compromise a suit in a manner highly suggestive of fraud in the Supreme Court decision in Vulcan Gases V. G.I.V. had nevertheless sat with others on the Disciplinary Panel to determine the fate of other less fortunate colleagues with some legal practitioners inevitably struck out. A classic illustration of the pot calling the kettle black. Little wonder that Nigerian lawyers have lost confidence in the disciplining of lawyers, when those who have a log in their eye dare to point out the speck in their neighbours eye.
Yet another sore point amongst lawyers is the perceived double standard in the, treatment of professional misconduct involving very senior lawyers particularly Senior Advocates of Nigeria SAN and young lawyers. While the disciplinary panels are very quick to wield the big stick in respect of misconduct by junior Counsel and non - SAN: lawyers have been suspended for defrauding clients as little as N28,000.OO while there have been instances of Senior Advocates alleged to have converted client's money being allowed adequate time to make a refund. And indeed in the case of the more certain allegations of unprofessional communications between some Senior Advocates of Nigeria and certain members of the disbanded Osun State Election Tribunal nothing has been heard about the case ever since, not even whether the allegations are true or not, yet had some lesser mortals been involved, heads would have literally rolled by now. It is this type of double standard that continue to account for the dwindling confidence of Nigerian lawyers in disciplinary proceedings.
Also in the same vein is the different approaches to the prosecution of disciplinary matters while the prosecution of some disciplinary proceedings is promptly undertaken resulting in the striking out, suspension or admonition of the Counsel concerned such that where the LPDC is keen on prosecution the defence who delays does so at his own peril. This is what occurred in the celebrated case of Okike V. LPDC where the Respondent Counsel on trial chose to absent himself inspite of evidence on record, that he was summoned seven times. After failing to appear the seventh time, the LPDC set down his disciplinary proceedings for hearing at the end of which he was struck-off the roll of lawyers. His subsequent appeal to have the proceedings set aside based on denial of fair hearing was dismissal off-hand as untenable as he had been given all opportunities to defend himself but chose to voluntarily waive his constitutional right. This approach which is justified on the peculiar facts of the case contrast sharply with dozens of other disciplinary matters wherein, the Respondent lawyers have been on trial for several years without the complainant or any witnesses being ever present at the hearing of those matters yet the LPDC bluntly refuses to strike out these matters in some extreme cases, where the Counsel on trial fails to make an appearance even where there is evidence that the said lawyer has diligently attended the disciplinary proceedings the LPDC sat to take evidence from the complainant and witnesses who have hitherto consistently absented themselves and thereupon proceeded to strike off the erring lawyer from the roll of lawyers. Certainly this kind of double standards in the disciplining of lawyers cannot but engender a crisis of confidence amongst a cross section of lawyers in the ability of disciplinary tribunals to do justice between complainants and lawyers without fear and favour.
Yet another issue, which also acts to further erode confidence in the impartial discipline of lawyers is the fact that while the trial of lawyers for professional misconduct is given all the necessary publicity in several National Dailies but in the few instances where the lawyer on trial survives the hangman's noosed the "born again lawyer's resurrection from the dead" hardly get a mention. The decisions of the LPDC in LPDC V EDU 15 and LPDC V. Aladejobi graphically illustrate this distinction, in the both cases the legal practitioners were struck off in the roll of legal practitioners at the Supreme Court and both striking off received national publicity. But where in the latter case the practitioner concerned was subsequently restated such reinstatement hardly received any publicity with the result that a few colleagues and judges unaware of the reinstatement of the luckier Counsel have had cause to challenge his appearance in court as a lawyer. Yet another reason why the confidence of lawyers in the impartiality of disciplinary cases against lawyers has waned considerably.
Now that this problem has been identified what is to be done to regain the confidence of lawyers in disciplinary proceedings which are essential to maintaining the dignity and integrity that is usually associated with the profession?
RECOMMENDATIONS:
While recognising the importance of maintaining the highest degree of integrity and professionalism at the Bar by ensuring that erring lawyers are promptly and strictly sanctioned, there is a corresponding need to retain the confidence of a cross section of lawyers in the impartiality of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers of all ages and standing at the Bar to this end the following suggestions are recommended.
(1) Lawyers cited for unethical and infamous conduct must be promptly investigated and promptly brought before the disciplinary panel.
(2) The standard of fairness must be same for all categories of lawyers, Senior or Junior, SAN or non-SAN. - Not different or double standards depending on the standing of the lawyer involved. Such can only be breed resentment.
(3) The same rule of fairness should also be maintained in the balance between the complainant and the Respondent, just like the LPDC is entitled to proceed where the Respondent consistently absents himself or herself, so also is the LPDC to strike out or dismiss as the case may be where the Complainant and witnesses consistently absent themselves. Anything else negates fair hearing!
(4) Only learned men and women and Jurists of the highest moral integrity and standing should sit in judgment over their colleagues or prosecute them for wrong doing. The physician must first heal himself before attending to others.
(5) At every stage the disciplinary proceedings must .remain transparent, and this in particular regard to publicity. Just as the citation of a practitioner before the LPDC deserves public notice and attention, so does his striking-off, suspension, admonition, discharge and reinstatement.
In regaining the confidence of lawyers in disciplinary proceedings, the LPDC and others involved in the discipline of lawyers will do well to take to heart the words of Kutigi JSC (as he then was) in Okike V. LPDC (No. 2) I think bodies or committees like the respondent (LPDC) should never be allowed leisurely and without due process to terminate peoples lives or peoples means of livelihood without strict adherence to the rules of natural justice and the rule of law. {LPDC added for emphasis}
Yes, one may even add the observation of his lordship that "the respondent, it appears to me, seemed to be more interested in getting the name of the appellant removed from the list of Legal Practitioners before satisfying itself that the appellant had misconducted himself. It this general impression that most modern day disciplinary proceedings are conducted in a manner consistent with his lordship's above observation that has fuelled the growing loss of confidence in disciplinary proceedings by legal practitioners in Nigeria
The earlier there is a paradigm shift the better for all.
The theme of this paper "Why have we lost confidence in the process of disciplining lawyers in Nigeria? attempts to provide answers for this moral dilemma.
The Nigerian legal profession with its roots in the English Legal Profession is regarded as a learned and noble profession fit only for persons from the educated elite of great learning and high moral character. Nothing less is good enough for the Bar. To that extent the Bar has over the ages sought to ensure that legal practitioners are guided by the highest professional standards in the practice of the profession. The 2007 Rules provide that "A Lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the cause of justice, maintain a high standard of professional conduct and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner". So if this be the lofty objective for enforcing discipline at the Bar how come many lawyers have lost confidence in the system?
A number of reasons have been given for the lukewarm attitude of lawyers to the discipline of their colleagues, this reasons include, manifest bias by the Disciplinary authorities, the presence of Morally Compromised adjudicators on the Panels, Double standards in the treatment of erring senior and junior lawyers, improper composition of
panels, absence of due process in the conduct of the affairs of the panel, undue haste to strike out erring lawyers for the flimsiest of reasons where on the other hand lawyers who get a reprieve either do not get an apology or adequate publicity for their escape from the sledgehammer. These reasons are by no means exhaustive of the lack of enthusiasm with which lawyers treat the disciplining of their colleagues. Nonetheless, we shall examine in greater details some of the reasons alluded to above.
Biased umpires
Recently at the commencement of one of the sittings of the Appeals Tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee, the Chairman of the Committee was quoted to have made the opening remark that the Panel in recent times has been inundated with a deluge of complaints of unethical and sharp practices against lawyers particularly in the area of Lawyer/Client relationship in the area of money and the determination of the panel to deal decisively with these complaints by ridding the profession of Bad eggs. Thankfully, very seasoned Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief G.O.K. Ajayi SAN in attendance on behalf of a client on the occasion was recorded to have expressed his displeasure at the punitive agenda of the panel as declared by the Chairman. Chief Ajayi SAN was quoted famously to have said "It does not matter even if there are 10,000 petitions against Legal practitioners, the fact remains that the Respondents are presumed innocent until allegations are proved. Your committee should therefore not give an impression that you are being influenced by the increasing number of petitions. It is not your business to be bothered about the number you are to do justice"
However, this admonition by the highly revered legal icon hardly seems to have had any sobering effect on the Legal Practitioners Appeal Tribunal Chairman who has consistently repeated the determination of his panel to show deviant lawyers the way out of the profession. Thus, every lawyer standing trial before the disciplinary committee attends every sitting with trepidation that his fate is sealed irrespective of probable innocence or valid defences to charges of unethical and unprofessional conduct. Certainly, there can be no confidence in such.
Disciplinary Proceedings where the practitioners on trial are presumed guilty contrary to constitutional presumption of innocence under Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution, all because of the pressure to prove to the doubting public that something is being done to dial with unethical conduct at the Bar. Yet the same profession or at least an arm of it is expected to dispense justice without fear or favour to all manner of men, but ironically is not expected to extend the same fundamental guarantees to colleagues standing trial for disciplinary proceedings many of whom have been cited unfairly by a recalcitrant and belligerent client(s).. This prevalent persecution mentality has the potential of completely eroding the confidence which lawyers have in the ability of Disciplinary tribunal to try every case dispassionately. No amount of pressure should displace the constitutional duty or\disciplinary panels to be fair to each and every complainant and respondent lawyer. As stated in the Supreme Court case of Ndu V. State. The court (by extension the Panel) has a constitution duty to be fair to all sides to a case/ be it Plaintiff or Defendant, Prosecution or Accused are entitled to a fair hearing which does not contemplate a standard if justice which is biased in favour of one party and to the prejudice of the other. Rather it imposes and ambidextrous standard of justice in which the court must be fair to both sides of the conflict".
Let every disciplinary proceeding be conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and objectivity devoid of bias or prejudice in favour or against any party.
Closely related 'to the last consideration is the presence on many of the Disciplinary panels of persons be they judicial officers or practitioner's who are disqualified by reason of one factor or another from sitting on a particular panel(s) or any panel for that matter. One will think that lawyers learned in the principles of bias and prejudice will do all in their power to ensure that persons with any disqualifying properties do not sit in judgment over others as laid down in a long time of cases. In the celebrated case of LPDC V. Fawehinmi6 the fact that the same office of the Attorney General of the Federation that laid the complaint of unprofessional misconduct was the same person to preside over the disciplinary proceedings was enough to nullify the proceedings. In another celebrated case of Denlove V. MDPDT the presence of lawyer to the complainant on the disciplinary tribunal that tried a Medical Doctor was enough to vitiate the said disciplinary proceedings while in yet another celebrated case Yesufu V. University of Maiduguri the presence of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Maiduguri who was the Chief Complainant against the students facing disciplinary proceedings as Chairman of the said disciplinary panel completely nullified such proceedings. However on the present state of the law as decided in the recent Supreme Court case of Ndukwe V. L.P.D.C.. it appears that the presence on a tribunal of a disqualified person may not necessarily vitiate the said disciplinary proceedings. This is" yet another reason for worry and lack of confidence by practitioners in the impartiality and fairness of modern day disciplinary proceedings. The point may however be made that the distinguishing facts in the Ndukwe's case is that the erring member on the panel Mr. N. Nwanodi SAN did not take part in the proceedings neither did he sign the decision of the panel, thus his mere presence was held to be insufficient to affect the substance of the panel's decision. But the pertinent question is, could he not have used his presence on the panel to influence the decision of the panel, if he had an interest in the matter? This pattern of decision is certainly worrisome and capable of overturning the well established principle against membership of disciplinary panels by members suffering one legal incapacity or the other. Another reason why lawyers no longer have no confidence in disciplinary proceedings in Nigeria. This attitude of playing down the presence of disqualified members on disciplinary panels is already playing out in some of the ongoing proceedings such as the Disciplinary proceedings between the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary proceedings and Mr. Adesina Ogunlana 9a where one of the members of the disciplinary panel recently lodged a complaint against the same Respondent over another issue. Yet the said member a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and former General Secretary of the Bar saw nothing amiss in remaining a member of the disciplinary panel even while he still has a ' pending complaint against the said Respondent in another matter contrary to the elementary principle of law that a man should not be a judge in his own cause - Nemo judex in causa sua.
Related to the immediate foregoing is the role of prosecutors who are no better or even worse than the lawyers facing disciplinary proceedings. Given the seriousness of disciplinary proceedings which in appropriate cases lead to the erring lawyer being struck off the list of legal practitioners.
See Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 and the case of Okike V. LPDC (No. 2)
It is expected that lawyers saddled with the onerous responsibility of bringing deviant colleagues to book must be lawyers of the highest moral and professional integrity. Sadly, this is not always so as only recently one of the leading LPDC prosecutors Mr. Dele Oye was cited for his involvement in the ongoing Banking Industry scandal.
Earlier, although uncelebrated, one of the Counsel who had deliberately acted contrary to his client's instructions not to compromise a suit in a manner highly suggestive of fraud in the Supreme Court decision in Vulcan Gases V. G.I.V. had nevertheless sat with others on the Disciplinary Panel to determine the fate of other less fortunate colleagues with some legal practitioners inevitably struck out. A classic illustration of the pot calling the kettle black. Little wonder that Nigerian lawyers have lost confidence in the disciplining of lawyers, when those who have a log in their eye dare to point out the speck in their neighbours eye.
Yet another sore point amongst lawyers is the perceived double standard in the, treatment of professional misconduct involving very senior lawyers particularly Senior Advocates of Nigeria SAN and young lawyers. While the disciplinary panels are very quick to wield the big stick in respect of misconduct by junior Counsel and non - SAN: lawyers have been suspended for defrauding clients as little as N28,000.OO while there have been instances of Senior Advocates alleged to have converted client's money being allowed adequate time to make a refund. And indeed in the case of the more certain allegations of unprofessional communications between some Senior Advocates of Nigeria and certain members of the disbanded Osun State Election Tribunal nothing has been heard about the case ever since, not even whether the allegations are true or not, yet had some lesser mortals been involved, heads would have literally rolled by now. It is this type of double standard that continue to account for the dwindling confidence of Nigerian lawyers in disciplinary proceedings.
Also in the same vein is the different approaches to the prosecution of disciplinary matters while the prosecution of some disciplinary proceedings is promptly undertaken resulting in the striking out, suspension or admonition of the Counsel concerned such that where the LPDC is keen on prosecution the defence who delays does so at his own peril. This is what occurred in the celebrated case of Okike V. LPDC where the Respondent Counsel on trial chose to absent himself inspite of evidence on record, that he was summoned seven times. After failing to appear the seventh time, the LPDC set down his disciplinary proceedings for hearing at the end of which he was struck-off the roll of lawyers. His subsequent appeal to have the proceedings set aside based on denial of fair hearing was dismissal off-hand as untenable as he had been given all opportunities to defend himself but chose to voluntarily waive his constitutional right. This approach which is justified on the peculiar facts of the case contrast sharply with dozens of other disciplinary matters wherein, the Respondent lawyers have been on trial for several years without the complainant or any witnesses being ever present at the hearing of those matters yet the LPDC bluntly refuses to strike out these matters in some extreme cases, where the Counsel on trial fails to make an appearance even where there is evidence that the said lawyer has diligently attended the disciplinary proceedings the LPDC sat to take evidence from the complainant and witnesses who have hitherto consistently absented themselves and thereupon proceeded to strike off the erring lawyer from the roll of lawyers. Certainly this kind of double standards in the disciplining of lawyers cannot but engender a crisis of confidence amongst a cross section of lawyers in the ability of disciplinary tribunals to do justice between complainants and lawyers without fear and favour.
Yet another issue, which also acts to further erode confidence in the impartial discipline of lawyers is the fact that while the trial of lawyers for professional misconduct is given all the necessary publicity in several National Dailies but in the few instances where the lawyer on trial survives the hangman's noosed the "born again lawyer's resurrection from the dead" hardly get a mention. The decisions of the LPDC in LPDC V EDU 15 and LPDC V. Aladejobi graphically illustrate this distinction, in the both cases the legal practitioners were struck off in the roll of legal practitioners at the Supreme Court and both striking off received national publicity. But where in the latter case the practitioner concerned was subsequently restated such reinstatement hardly received any publicity with the result that a few colleagues and judges unaware of the reinstatement of the luckier Counsel have had cause to challenge his appearance in court as a lawyer. Yet another reason why the confidence of lawyers in the impartiality of disciplinary cases against lawyers has waned considerably.
Now that this problem has been identified what is to be done to regain the confidence of lawyers in disciplinary proceedings which are essential to maintaining the dignity and integrity that is usually associated with the profession?
RECOMMENDATIONS:
While recognising the importance of maintaining the highest degree of integrity and professionalism at the Bar by ensuring that erring lawyers are promptly and strictly sanctioned, there is a corresponding need to retain the confidence of a cross section of lawyers in the impartiality of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers of all ages and standing at the Bar to this end the following suggestions are recommended.
(1) Lawyers cited for unethical and infamous conduct must be promptly investigated and promptly brought before the disciplinary panel.
(2) The standard of fairness must be same for all categories of lawyers, Senior or Junior, SAN or non-SAN. - Not different or double standards depending on the standing of the lawyer involved. Such can only be breed resentment.
(3) The same rule of fairness should also be maintained in the balance between the complainant and the Respondent, just like the LPDC is entitled to proceed where the Respondent consistently absents himself or herself, so also is the LPDC to strike out or dismiss as the case may be where the Complainant and witnesses consistently absent themselves. Anything else negates fair hearing!
(4) Only learned men and women and Jurists of the highest moral integrity and standing should sit in judgment over their colleagues or prosecute them for wrong doing. The physician must first heal himself before attending to others.
(5) At every stage the disciplinary proceedings must .remain transparent, and this in particular regard to publicity. Just as the citation of a practitioner before the LPDC deserves public notice and attention, so does his striking-off, suspension, admonition, discharge and reinstatement.
In regaining the confidence of lawyers in disciplinary proceedings, the LPDC and others involved in the discipline of lawyers will do well to take to heart the words of Kutigi JSC (as he then was) in Okike V. LPDC (No. 2) I think bodies or committees like the respondent (LPDC) should never be allowed leisurely and without due process to terminate peoples lives or peoples means of livelihood without strict adherence to the rules of natural justice and the rule of law. {LPDC added for emphasis}
Yes, one may even add the observation of his lordship that "the respondent, it appears to me, seemed to be more interested in getting the name of the appellant removed from the list of Legal Practitioners before satisfying itself that the appellant had misconducted himself. It this general impression that most modern day disciplinary proceedings are conducted in a manner consistent with his lordship's above observation that has fuelled the growing loss of confidence in disciplinary proceedings by legal practitioners in Nigeria
The earlier there is a paradigm shift the better for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment