25/06/2026
SUSPENSION OF CHIEF MIKE OZEKHOME, SAN, FROM THE INNER BAR: A QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
The suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, prior to the determination of the allegations against him deserves serious scrutiny. At first glance, it appears to unsettle one of the most fundamental principles of justice—that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The Legal Practitioners' Privileges Committee (LPPC) has justified its decision as an interim measure taken pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of its Guidelines, explaining that the objective is to preserve the integrity, dignity, and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. While the desire to protect the sanctity of the Inner Bar is undoubtedly legitimate, institutional integrity should not be preserved in a manner that creates the impression that a mere allegation, without more, is sufficient to warrant disciplinary sanctions.
The LPPC ought to resist the temptation to equate accusation with culpability. The imposition of a sanction before the conclusion of disciplinary or judicial proceedings risks transforming an allegation into a punishment before liability has been established. Such an approach may inadvertently undermine the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and due process, values that the legal profession is duty-bound to uphold.
Ordinarily, where criminal allegations are involved, one would expect the accused person to be arraigned, tried, and, where appropriate, convicted before punitive professional consequences are imposed, unless the applicable rules expressly provide otherwise. Such a sequence preserves the appearance that professional sanctions are founded upon established wrongdoing rather than unproven accusations.
By contrast, Chief Ozekhome's suspension has been imposed while the allegations against him remain unresolved and before any finding of guilt has been made. This distinction inevitably raises legitimate questions regarding consistency, proportionality, and fairness in the application of the LPPC's disciplinary standards.
If the LPPC has adopted a new threshold for intervention through interim suspensions, fairness and transparency require that such a standard be clearly articulated, consistently applied, and exercised only in exceptional circumstances. The credibility of any disciplinary regime depends not merely on its objectives but also on the fairness, impartiality, and consistency of its implementation.
Ultimately, the preservation of the dignity of the Inner Bar must be balanced against the equally compelling constitutional imperatives of human dignity, fair hearing, and the presumption of innocence, as guaranteed under Sections 34 and 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
The legal profession derives its moral authority from its unwavering commitment to justice and the rule of law. In striving to protect the integrity of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the LPPC must ensure that it does not inadvertently compromise the very principles upon which that integrity rests. Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done.
Edim Justus Ekwok Esq.
