Human rights activist and lawyer, Abdul Mahmud, has criticised the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), by the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), arguing that the action undermined the fundamental legal principle of presumption of innocence.
Mahmud made the remarks in a post published on his verified Facebook page on Thursday, following the LPPC’s decision to suspend Ozekhome from the prestigious rank of SAN pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against him.
LEADERSHIP reports that the LPPC had on Wednesday announced Ozekhome’s suspension from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria as a temporary measure pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against him.
According to Mahmud, although the LPPC justified the suspension as an interim measure aimed at protecting the integrity and prestige of the SAN rank, the decision risked creating the impression that mere allegations were sufficient grounds for punishment.
“The suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN before the determination of the allegations against him deserves serious criticism because it appears to unsettle a foundational legal principle: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” he wrote.
He noted that while institutional integrity is important, it should not be pursued in a manner that suggests an accused person has already been found culpable.
“Unfortunately, institutional integrity cannot be strengthened by creating the impression that accusation itself attracts sanction,” Mahmud stated.
The activist further argued that the legal profession should be particularly careful not to equate allegations with guilt, warning that suspending the privileges of a SAN before disciplinary proceedings are concluded could amount to imposing punishment before a final determination.
“The legal profession, more than any other, ought to resist the temptation to equate allegations with culpability. To suspend the privileges of the Inner Bar while proceedings remain unresolved risks transforming a temporary accusation into a practical punishment,” he added.
Mahmud also compared Ozekhome’s case with that of fellow Senior Advocate, Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN, whose SAN privileges were withdrawn only after he had been arraigned, tried and convicted by a court.
“Nwobike was arraigned, tried and convicted before the LPPC moved against his SAN privileges; the sanction followed a judicial finding of guilt rather than the commencement of proceedings,” he said.
According to him, that sequence of events created the impression that professional sanctions followed adjudication rather than mere allegations.
“By contrast, in Ozekhome’s case, the suspension has come while matters remain pending and before guilt has been established,” Mahmud observed.
He further called on the LPPC to clearly define and consistently apply any new disciplinary threshold being adopted for SANs.
“If the LPPC is adopting a new threshold for intervention, then fairness demands that the standard be articulated clearly and applied uniformly to all holders of the rank,” he said.
Mahmud warned that failure to ensure consistency could fuel perceptions of unequal treatment within the legal profession.
“Otherwise, critics will inevitably ask whether there are now different disciplinary yardsticks for different senior advocates, a perception that can do as much damage to confidence in the profession as the allegations themselves,” he added.
