A Petition Without Foundation

By Kolawole Jamodu

In the hallowed practice of law, there is a category of legal filing that is best described as self-defeating , a document that, examined carefully, dismantles its own central argument before the opposing party needs to say a single word. The petition filed against Deputy Speaker Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee is a textbook specimen of precisely this kind of filing. It is dramatic in its language, aggressive in its tone, and catastrophic in its legal foundations. Let us examine why, point by point, with the seriousness the subject demands.

Finding I: The LPDC Has No Jurisdiction — Full Stop

Every legal proceeding begins with the same foundational question: does this tribunal have the power to hear this matter? In this case, the answer is no, and the answer does not require elaborate analysis to reach. The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee was established under the Legal Practitioners Act to investigate and sanction professional misconduct committed by legal practitioners in the exercise of their profession. Both conditions must be satisfied. The conduct must be that of a practitioner. It must have arisen in professional practice.

Every act complained of in this petition the simultaneous attendance of NYSC service and Law School as well as the declaration made in April 2010 took place before Benjamin Kalu was called to the Nigerian Bar in September 2011. At the time of the alleged conduct, he was a law student, not a legal practitioner. The LPDC regulates a profession. It does not regulate students. Its mandate does not reach backwards in time to capture conduct that predates membership of the profession it oversees. This is not a technical loophole; it is a foundational boundary. No amount of creative pleading can dissolve it. The petition fails at the first gate, and the gate is locked.
You cannot haul a man before a professional disciplinary body for conduct he engaged in before he joined the profession. That is not accountability. That is absurdity dressed in legal robes.

Finding II: The Petitioner’s Own Exhibit Destroys His Own Case

For enrolment as a legal practitioner in Nigeria, the primary requirement is a valid Call to Bar Certificate — proof of having been duly called to the Nigerian Bar. The allegation of fraudulent enrolment, therefore, would require demonstrating that the Call to Bar Certificate is forged, fabricated, or otherwise invalid. The petitioner does not allege this. In fact, the petitioner goes further — he produces the Deputy Speaker’s Call to Bar Certificate as an exhibit within the petition itself.
Read that again. The petitioner, in a petition alleging fraudulent enrolment, presents the very document that confirms legitimate enrolment. By exhibiting the certificate, he has conclusively acknowledged its existence and its validity. He has, in effect, answered the central allegation of his own petition before the respondent was even required to file a reply. The fraud allegation against enrolment collapses under the weight of the petitioner’s own documents. Courts and disciplinary panels call this a concession. It is fatal to the case.

Finding III: No Law Prohibits What Was Done

The NYSC Act speaks to the duration and unbroken continuity of national service. It does not contain and has never contained a provision expressly prohibiting a corps member from simultaneously attending professional school. This challenge has been issued publicly and repeatedly: cite the section, cite the subsection, cite the paragraph that creates this prohibition. It cannot be done. The provision does not exist.
Furthermore, the declaration made by corps members at the commencement of service is a prospective administrative instrument — it speaks to what shall not be done going forward and carries no criminal perjury element, given that it is not made under oath. These are not interpretive arguments. They are statements of plain legal fact. Across Nigeria, thousands of corps members have obtained professional certifications in accounting, cybersecurity, project management, and other fields during their service year — with the knowledge and in many cases the encouragement of NYSC. The suggestion that Law School attendance is uniquely and specially prohibited, with no statutory basis for that prohibition, is simply not credible.

Finding IV: Fraud Demands A Different Forum, And A Higher Standard

The allegation of fraud is not a regulatory complaint. It is a criminal allegation. Fraud, in Nigerian law, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, before a court of competent criminal jurisdiction, on admissible evidence establishing intentional deception. The materials exhibited in this petition do not meet that standard. They do not establish intent. They do not establish deception. They do not constitute admissible proof of any criminal act. The LPDC is not a criminal court. It cannot adjudicate criminal allegations. And even if it could, the evidence presented here would fall far short of the standard required.
Any seasoned legal practitioner knows this. A former First Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, who has signed his name to this document, knows this better than most. The filing of a fraud allegation in a forum that cannot hear it, on evidence that cannot support it, is not an exercise in accountability. It is an exercise in noise. And the Nigerian legal community is entitled to call it what it is.
The petition should be dismissed at the threshold, with a clear statement that conduct predating Bar membership falls outside the LPDC’s jurisdiction. The Deputy Speaker’s name should be restored to full standing without delay. And those who orchestrated this filing should reflect, seriously, on what they have done to the credibility of the institutions they have attempted to use.

*Jamodu, a lawyer, writes from Ibadan.