The decision in Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee(L.P.D.C) v. Fawehinmi (1985) stands as a cornerstone in Nigerian constitutional and administrative law, particularly on the doctrine of fair hearing and the application of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), in exercising its disciplinary jurisdiction, was bound by the provisions of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution relating to fair hearing, and whether its composition in this case violated the principles of natural justice.
Facts of the Case of L.P.D.C v Fawehinmi (1985)
The Respondent, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, was accused of professional misconduct for causing an advertisement to be published in the West Africa magazine, allegedly contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct which prohibited advertising by legal practitioners.
Upon receiving a query from the Attorney-General’s office requesting an explanation within 14 days, a formal charge was initiated against the Respondent before the expiration of that period. When the matter came before the LPDC, the Attorney-General, who initiated the proceedings, presided as Chairman of the Committee.
Additionally, some members of the Committee had previously expressed strong opinions against the Respondent during a meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association’s National Executive Committee.
The Respondent challenged the composition of the LPDC, alleging a likelihood of bias and a violation of his constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution. He sought an order of prohibition restraining the Committee from proceeding with the matter.
The High Court granted the application, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The LPDC then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues for Determination in the Case of L.P.D.C v Fawehinmi (1985)
The Supreme Court considered several issues, including:
1.Whether the LPDC is a tribunal within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution.
2.Whether the LPDC exercises judicial or administrative functions.
3.Whether the rules of natural justice apply to the proceedings of the LPDC.Whether the composition of the LPDC in this case violated the rule against bias.
4.When a writ of prohibition may issue against a tribunal.
Decision of the Court in the Case of L.P.D.C v Fawehinmi (1985)
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi ESTABLISHED IN L.P.D.C v FAWEHINMI (1985)
1. LPDC as a Tribunal under the Constitution.
The Court held that the LPDC qualifies as a “tribunal” within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution. A body is considered a tribunal if:
There is a dispute between parties (lis inter partes),It has the power to make binding decisions, andIts decisions are final and conclusive.
The LPDC satisfies these criteria as it determines allegations of professional misconduct and imposes sanctions affecting legal practitioners.
2. Nature of LPDC’s Functions
The Court held that the functions of the LPDC are quasi-judicial rather than merely administrative. Its duties involve determining disputes and applying legal standards to facts, which are hallmarks of judicial power.
3. Applicability of Natural Justice.
The Court emphasized that the rules of natural justice apply to the LPDC. In particular:
Audi alteram partem (hear the other side), and
Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
4. Violation of the Rule Against Bias
The Court found a clear likelihood of bias because:The Attorney-General acted as both prosecutor and chairman of the LPDC.Some members had previously expressed adverse opinions about the Respondent.
This dual role created a situation where the decision-makers had prior involvement and predisposition, thereby undermining impartiality.The Court held that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
5. Writ of Prohibition
The Court held that a writ of prohibition may issue to prevent a tribunal from proceeding where there is:Excess of jurisdiction, orA real likelihood of breach of natural justice.Importantly, prohibition can be granted before proceedings are concluded, where there is a threatened violation of rights.
In clear Summary lines,The Supreme Court affirmed that the LPDC, in exercising disciplinary control over legal practitioners, performs a quasi-judicial function and is therefore bound by the constitutional requirement of fair hearing.The participation of the Attorney-General as both prosecutor and adjudicator, along with the involvement of previously biased members, rendered the proceedings fundamentally defective.
The appeal was dismissed, and the order of prohibition was upheld, although limited to the disqualified members rather than the entire Committee.
Cases Cited in course of judgement in L.P.D.C v FAWEHINMI (1985)
Adeyemi v. Attorney-General, Oyo State (1984) 1 SCNLR 525
Alakija v. Medical Disciplinary Committee (1959) 4 FSC 38
Denloye v. Medical Disciplinary Committee (1968) 1 All NLR 306
Anjoku v. Nnamani (1953) 14 WACA 357
RELATED TOPICS:
A.G-OF BENDEL STATE v. A.G-FEDERATION & 18 Ors(1983) FULL SUMMARY
