OBIAJULU NWALUTU V. NIGERIAN BAR ASSOCIATION & LEGAL PRACTITIONERS’ DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE (2019)

Background

This appeal concerned disciplinary proceedings brought against Obiajulu Nwalutu, a legal practitioner. On 19 July 2010, the appellant filed a motion on notice before the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking the joinder of Afribank Nigeria Plc, now Mainstreet Bank Limited, as a party in a pending action. Afribank later became aware of the application and took the position that the appellant had acted without authority or instructions. The bank’s Acting Company Secretary and Legal Adviser instructed Chief A. A. Aribisala, SAN, to take steps to set aside the joinder. The Federal High Court subsequently set aside the joinder order and struck Afribank’s name from the suit.

Chief Aribisala petitioned the Nigerian Bar Association, alleging that the appellant had purported to act for Afribank without authorisation, contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct in the Legal Profession. The Nigerian Bar Association found that a prima facie case had been made out and referred the matter to the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee of the Body of Benchers. The appellant denied the allegation and maintained that he had acted pursuant to oral instructions received from Mr. Chinedu Oranuba, his erstwhile principal and a director of Daily Times Plc.

On 30 November 2015, the Disciplinary Committee found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and directed that he be suspended from legal practice for five years. He appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the competence of the proceedings, the composition of the Committee, and the evidential basis of the direction.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant’s first issue, alleging breach of his fundamental rights, was competent where it did not arise from any ground of appeal.
2. Whether the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee was properly constituted and had jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that its membership changed during the proceedings.
3. Whether the Committee’s finding of professional misconduct was supported by credible and admissible evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an issue for determination must arise from a competent ground of appeal. An appellate court will not consider an issue that is unrelated to the grounds filed. The appellant’s first issue was therefore struck out, and a ground from which no issue had been formulated was treated as abandoned.

On the statutory composition of the Committee, the Court held that the applicable law was the Legal Practitioners Act 2004 incorporating the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No. 21 of 1994. Under the amended provisions, the Attorney-General of the Federation was not required to be the Chairman. The appellant’s argument that the Committee was invalid merely because its Chairman was not the Attorney-General of the Federation was rejected. The Committee was, in that respect, properly constituted and possessed jurisdiction.

However, the Court distinguished the question of statutory composition from the requirement that the same adjudicating panel must hear the evidence and determine the case. The membership of the Committee varied during the proceedings. Although the Chairman and one other member sat throughout, other members who participated in the final decision had not heard the whole of the evidence or observed the witnesses. The Court held that a tribunal differently constituted during the hearing cannot validly deliver a decision unless the law expressly permits that procedure.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee performs a quasi-judicial function and must observe the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. Fair hearing includes a fair trial, and a fair trial consists of the whole hearing. A panelist who did not hear the witnesses cannot properly evaluate their credibility, demeanour, consistency and testimony merely by relying on the account or opinion of another panelist.

The Court further held that the variation in membership rendered the proceedings and final direction null and void. The Committee was a court or tribunal for the purposes of the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing, and the fact that a quorum may have been present at each sitting did not cure the fundamental defect. The relevant issue was not simply whether the minimum number of members was present, but whether the members who decided the case had personally heard the evidence on which the decision was based.

The Court also found serious evidential deficiencies. Chief Aribisala, the person who initiated the petition, did not appear before the Committee to adopt his witness statement or give evidence. His absence amounted to abandonment of the petition. The Assistant Secretary of the Body of Benchers, Zibai Blessed Katung, could not substitute for the petitioner or for the individuals with direct knowledge of whether Afribank had authorised the appellant’s conduct. His statement, based on documents he had read, was merely opinion and hearsay. A document attached to an unadopted deposition could not properly be used as substantive evidence against the appellant.

The Court reiterated that the primary responsibility for evaluating evidence and ascribing probative value belongs to the trial court or tribunal that hears and observes the witnesses. No amount of hearsay, whether oral or documentary, can replace legally admissible evidence. The Committee therefore erred in relying on such material to sustain the allegation of professional misconduct.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the direction of the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee finding the appellant guilty and suspending him from legal practice for five years. Obiajulu Nwalutu was acquitted of the charge of professional misconduct.

Significance

The decision is significant for disciplinary proceedings against legal practitioners and other quasi-judicial bodies. It confirms that a panel must remain properly constituted throughout a hearing, particularly where credibility and oral testimony are central to the outcome. Statutory quorum alone is insufficient where decision-makers did not hear the whole case. The judgment also reinforces the distinction between admissible evidence and hearsay, and makes clear that professional discipline must be founded on reliable evidence tested in a procedurally fair hearing.