Following a careful study of the multiple alleged infractions, including allegations bordering on criminal conduct and clear issues of professional misconduct, attributed to Abubakar Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation since his departure from office , for which he is still facing prosecution in respect of some of these matters, I became particularly concerned that the Nigerian Bar Association has remained unusually quiet in activating the obvious professional dimensions arising from these allegations, thereby allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed in isolation.
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.
It is against this background that I most profoundly commend the resolve and initiative of SPI-LAW, which has now taken the important step of petitioning the LPDC-NBA over alleged professional misconduct by Malami, relying principally on findings contained in the ICC Tribunal’s 16 September 2026 Final Award in ICC Case No. 26260/SPN/AB/CPB: Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited & Anor v. Federal Government of Nigeria.
According to the petition, SPI-LAW is asking the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) to examine whether the conduct attributed to Malami in the 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.
SPI-LAW brought the petition in the public interest, invoking Rule 4 of the LPDC Rules, 2020, and urged the disciplinary body to determine whether there is a case to answer and, if so, invite Malami to respond to the allegations. This question, in my respectful view, deserves to be examined fully and without fear or favour.
Recall that the ICC 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.
SPI-LAW has also made it clear that the disciplinary proceedings are not intended to substitute for a criminal trial, stressing that the allegations must be independently determined through the appropriate disciplinary process.
I, however, wish to add and respectfully insist that this petition should not be limited to the LPDC alone. It should, where legally appropriate, extend to the Body of Senior Advocates of Nigeria and the Body of Benchers. This is profoundly long overdue.
There has been a precedent where the NBA relied upon decisions emanating from foreign proceedings to, as a body, petition against a Senior Advocate, notwithstanding the fact that the substantive matter was already before the court. 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.
I further opine that the NBA, as the professional body entrusted with the protection of the integrity and reputation of the legal profession, must direct its searchlight to allegations of disgraceful and infamous conduct involving top political office holders in the country who continue to conduct themselves as though the professional obligations imposed upon members of the Bar do not apply to them. Indeed, in some instances, persons within this category are themselves members of the very high-echelon bodies earlier highlighted.
The fight against unethical conduct within the legal profession, whether involving ordinary lawyers or Senior Advocates, must be comprehensive, principled and consistent. In pursuing that objective, there must be no sacred cows.
I once again, commend SPI-LAW for this bold and timely initiative.
Signed
Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Esq., KSC
Dunu-Ezeugosinachi
30 September 2026