By John Akubo, Abuja
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has expressed concern over the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) by the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), warning that the decision could undermine one of the most fundamental principles of Nigeria’s legal system—the presumption of innocence.
The rights advocacy group said the suspension of the senior lawyer before the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against him raises important questions about due process, fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice that underpin Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, HURIWA argued that every accused person is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty through a lawful and transparent process.
According to the organisation, the doctrine of presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of Nigerian jurisprudence and serves as a safeguard against arbitrary sanctions, institutional prejudice and premature punishment.
HURIWA noted that while the LPPC has a responsibility to protect the integrity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, such responsibility must be exercised in a manner that visibly conforms with the principles of fairness and due process.
The group said suspending Ozekhome from the privileges attached to the SAN rank before the determination of the petition against him could create the impression that allegations alone are sufficient grounds for punitive action.
“It may be perceived as imposing a measure of punishment before a final determination has been reached,” the organisation stated.
The rights group stressed that its intervention should not be interpreted as a defence of any alleged misconduct against the senior advocate but as a principled appeal for the protection of constitutional safeguards and established legal norms.
According to HURIWA, the legal profession occupies a unique position as a defender of justice and constitutional rights and must therefore ensure that its disciplinary mechanisms reflect the same standards of fairness and impartiality that lawyers are expected to uphold.
The organisation recalled that in several previous disciplinary cases involving senior members of the legal profession, sanctions were imposed only after investigations and legal proceedings had been concluded and culpability established.
It argued that such an approach strengthens public confidence in disciplinary institutions because it demonstrates that decisions are based on proven facts rather than unresolved allegations.
HURIWA warned that any perception of premature punishment could erode public trust in the objectivity and independence of professional disciplinary bodies.
The group therefore urged the LPPC to reconsider its decision and restore Ozekhome’s privileges pending the conclusion of investigations and final determination of the petition against him.
It maintained that the integrity of the SAN rank and the constitutional rights of those who hold it are not mutually exclusive and can both be protected through a disciplinary process that is transparent, fair and firmly rooted in the rule of law.
The organisation further emphasised that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, adding that strict adherence to due process remains essential to maintaining confidence in both the legal profession and the administration of justice.
HURIWA consequently called on the LPPC to allow the disciplinary process to run its full course and reserve any final sanctions until the allegations against Ozekhome have been thoroughly investigated and determined in accordance with the law.