Judge Rules Legal Practitioners’ Privilege Committee, Not Court, Determines Lawyer’s Qualification; Dismisses Motion In Ndifon’s Case

The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, on Thursday, dismissed a motion filed by Cyril Ndifon challenging the qualification of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)’s lawyer, Osuobeni Akponimisingha.

Justice James Omotosho, in a ruling, held that the application and counter affidavit filed by parties in the controversy over the legal qualifications of Akponimisingha and defence counsel Joe Agi was not for the court to determine.

According to the judge, the Legal Practitioners’ Privilege Committee is the appropriate body to determine whether a lawyer is on its roll call.

“it is clear that the committee can investigate such allegations upon a petition by any of the party,” the judge said.

The embattled professor and his co-defendant, Sunny Anyanwu, had alleged that Mr Akponimisingha was not qualified to practise law.

Through their lawyer, Mr Agi, the duo insisted that Akponimisingha’s name was allegedly not on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria pursuant to Section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act.

They argued that the four-count amended charge preferred against them by ICPC was incompetent due to the disputed identity of the anti-graft agency’s lawyer. They said the development had robbed the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

They, therefore, prayed the court to quash the charge against them.

In his counter-affidavit dated March 20, Mr Akponimisingha accused the suspended dean and his legal team of being jealous of his academic qualifications.

The lawyer, who attached his Nigerian Bar Association’s practising licence document dated 2016 with the counter affidavit, said he graduated from law school. Contrary to the defence argument, the appellation “Dr” added to his name was a result of an additional academic qualification acquired by him after he had been called to the Bar as a legal practitioner.

He equally alleged that the names of the lead counsel to the defendants, Mr Agi, and other senior advocates appearing with him in the criminal case were not on the roll of Legal Practitioners in Nigeria with the appendage “SAN.”

He argued that the fact that the appellation “Dr” was added to his name did not make the amended charge liable to be struck out. Mr Akponimisingha said he was duly called to the Nigerian Bar and licensed to practise law.

“That I know as a fact that justices presiding over cases in courts in Nigeria were called to the Bar only with their given names without the appellation ‘Honourable Justice.’

“Therefore, the appellation ‘Honourable Justice’ added to their names by reason of their appointment as judges does not render their judgments invalid because their names do not appear on the roll call of Legal Practitioners as ‘Hon. Justices.’

“The name Joe Odey Agi, SAN, is not on the roll of legal practitioners in Nigeria. What exists on the roll is Agi Joseph Odey, year of call, 1985,” he said.

Mr Akponimisingha told the court that the defence’s present application was a delay tactic deployed to stall the smooth trial of the charge. He urged the court to discountenance their plea.

Delivering the ruling on Thursday, the judge held that the court would not embark on a voyage of discovery regarding the accusation and counteraccusation.

“This court will not embark on a voyage of discovery. This application is hereby dismissed,” he said.

On the defence argument that the prosecution counsel failed to obtain a fiat from the office of the attorney general of the federation before prosecuting the matter, the judge said the court would not embark on inquiries because even the AGF had not complained.

Besides, he held that the private prosecution lawyer to Akponimisingha was not the lead counsel in the matter, and as such, he needed no fiat from the AGF to be part of the case.

“It is clear that the suit filed by the ICPC is proper before him,” the judge held.

The judge, who expressed concern over the trial’s delay due to the parties’ actions, said he would no longer entertain any objection during the trial until the final written address.

“You are at liberty to raise any objection, but it must be at the end,” he said.

The judge consequently adjourned the matter until June 19 and June 20 for defence.

Mr Ndifon was, on January 25, re-arraigned alongside Mr Anyanwu on an amended four-count charge bordering on alleged sexual harassment and attempt to perverse the cause of justice.