The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has dismissed a complaint filed against the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, over allegations relating to his participation in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme and his qualification as a legal practitioner.
The petition, filed by John Aikpokpo Martins Esq., alleged that Kalu made false declarations during his admission to the Nigerian Law School and participation in the NYSC programme.
According to the complaint, Kalu who was called to the Nigerian Bar on September 6, 2011, and enrolled on the Roll of Legal Practitioners at the Supreme Court of Nigeria on October 5, 2011—was accused of allegedly participating in the NYSC scheme while simultaneously attending training at the Nigerian Law School.
The petitioner argued that such an arrangement would violate the NYSC Act, which requires corps members to dedicate one full year to national service without engaging in other programmes. He further alleged that the situation could imply that Kalu falsified records that enabled him to be admitted to the Nigerian Law School and subsequently called to the Bar.
The complaint also referenced a change of name by the Deputy Speaker from Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu to Benjamin Okezie Kalu before his call to the Bar.
However, after reviewing the originating application and supporting affidavit, the LPDC held that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction.
In the committee’s opinion, signed by Umeh Kalu, SAN, it stated that issues relating to NYSC participation, admission into the Nigerian Law School, and enrolment as a legal practitioner fall under the purview of relevant regulatory bodies such as the NYSC, the Council of Legal Education, and the regular courts.
The LPDC emphasized that its mandate is strictly limited to regulating the professional conduct of lawyers already called to the Nigerian Bar in the course of their professional duties.
It further noted that the alleged infractions cited by the petitioner were said to have occurred before the respondent was called to the Bar and therefore could not be subjected to disciplinary review by the LPDC.
The committee also ruled that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case that would warrant inviting the Deputy Speaker to respond to the allegations.
“This complaint, from the facts, is definitely not one for the consideration of the LPDC… The applicant has not adduced any prima facie evidence to warrant the respondent being invited to respond to the complaint,” the opinion stated.
The LPDC consequently ruled that no prima facie case had been established, effectively bringing the complaint before the disciplinary body to an end.
