By Titus Eleweke
Anambra State-born human rights lawyer and lead counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has said that a fresh question of professional accountability has emerged within Nigeria’s legal community following a petition by SPI-LAW to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over alleged professional misconduct involving the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, SAN.
According to a statement titled, “NO SACRED COWS AT THE BAR: SPI-LAW’S PETITION AGAINST FORMER AGF ABUBAKAR MALAMI AND THE IMPERATIVE OF PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY,” Ejiofor said the petition, which seeks disciplinary scrutiny of allegations arising principally from findings contained in the September 16, 2026, Final Award of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Tribunal in Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited & Anor v. Federal Government of Nigeria, has triggered renewed calls for the Nigerian legal profession to apply its ethical and disciplinary standards consistently, irrespective of the status or influence of the person involved.
Commenting on the development, legal practitioner, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Esq., said he was concerned that, despite multiple allegations attributed to Malami since his departure from office,including allegations bordering on criminal conduct and professional misconduct,the professional dimensions of those allegations had not received sufficient attention from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).
Ejiofor, who also holds the traditional title of Dunu-Ezeugosinachi, said the issue should be considered separately from any criminal proceedings arising from some of the allegations, arguing that criminal accountability and professional discipline operate within distinct legal frameworks.
“I do not wish to dwell on the alleged manner in which Malami conducted himself in office, or on the various acts attributed to him which, if established, would be unbecoming of a learned Senior Advocate, much less a holder of the exalted office of Attorney-General of the Federation,” he stated.
He, however, commended SPI-LAW for what he described as a significant step towards bringing the professional dimension of the allegations before the appropriate disciplinary authorities.
According to Ejiofor, SPI-LAW’s petition asks the LPDC to examine whether the conduct attributed to Malami in the ICC arbitral award amounts to professional misconduct under Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, and Section 11 of the Legal Practitioners Act.
The petition, he noted, was reportedly brought in the public interest pursuant to Rule 4 of the LPDC Rules, 2020, with SPI-LAW urging the disciplinary body to determine whether a case had been established requiring Malami to respond to the allegations.
Ejiofor said the question raised by the petition deserved to be fully examined without fear or favour.
The ICC proceedings cited in the petition arose from claims brought by Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and another party against the Federal Government of Nigeria.
According to him, the tribunal ultimately rejected Sunrise Power’s claims and ordered the company and Adesanya to reimburse Nigeria $11.82 million in legal fees and $414,125 in arbitration costs.
Ejiofor stressed that the disciplinary process should not be regarded as a substitute for any criminal trial arising from the same or related allegations.
He said SPI-LAW had itself made clear that the proposed disciplinary proceedings were separate from any criminal proceedings and that any allegations against Malami must be independently determined through the appropriate professional disciplinary process.
Ejiofor, however, argued that the matter should not end with the LPDC.
He called for the issue, where legally appropriate, to also receive the attention of the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria (BOSAN) and the Body of Benchers, describing such broader professional scrutiny as “profoundly long overdue.”
According to him, there had previously been a case in which the NBA relied on decisions emanating from foreign proceedings to petition against a Senior Advocate, even though the substantive matter was already before a court.
He argued that the existence of parallel court proceedings did not necessarily preclude the relevant professional bodies from examining the professional and disciplinary dimensions of the conduct in question.
“Today, even while that matter is being tried in court, the LPDC, the Body of Senior Advocates and the Body of Benchers are simultaneously seized of aspects of the same subject. What is good for the goose is good for the gander,” Ejiofor said.
The lawyer further called on the NBA to broaden its scrutiny of allegations involving lawyers who occupy or have occupied prominent political and public offices, particularly where such allegations raise questions about compliance with professional obligations.
He argued that the NBA, as the professional body charged with protecting the integrity and reputation of the legal profession, should ensure that professional standards apply equally to all members of the Bar, regardless of their political status, public office or professional standing.
“The fight against unethical conduct within the legal profession, whether involving ordinary lawyers or Senior Advocates, must be comprehensive, principled and consistent,” Ejiofor said.
“In pursuing that objective, there must be no sacred cows,” he added.
Ejiofor again commended SPI-LAW for what he described as its “bold and timely initiative,” urging the relevant professional bodies to examine the issues raised through the appropriate legal and disciplinary processes.
