Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, has through his solicitors called on the Council of Legal Education to reject a petition that seeks the withdrawal of his Nigerian Law School qualifying certificate. The legal team described the application as “fundamentally deficient in law” and lacking any legal foundation.
Legal Response to Petition
In a letter dated April 28, 2026, signed by Chukwuebuka S. Okeke of Olaniwun Ajayi LP, Kalu’s lawyers responded to a petition filed on March 16, 2026, by lawyer John Aikpokpo Martins. The petitioner had requested the cancellation of Kalu’s certificate, alleging that his attendance at the Nigerian Law School overlapped with his participation in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme.
Arguments Against the Petition
Kalu’s legal team argued that the Council of Legal Education, established under the Legal Education (Consolidation, etc.) Act, can only exercise powers expressly granted by law. They stated that “no express statutory power” allows the Council to retrospectively withdraw or cancel a qualifying certificate already issued. The lawyers further contended that any disciplinary authority of the Council is “necessarily narrow” and applies only in cases involving “manifest vitiating criminal conduct,” which they said has not been established against the Deputy Speaker.
The solicitors urged the Council to reject the petition on three grounds: absence of criminal misconduct, reliance on an unsworn declaration, and lack of any legal prohibition against simultaneous participation in NYSC and Law School programs. “The Council cannot revoke a lawfully issued certificate unless a clear case of criminal misconduct is proven. The petition does not meet that threshold,” the letter stated.
Unsworn Declaration and Legal Framework
The legal team emphasized that the declaration relied upon by the petitioner was unsworn and “carries no force of law.” They argued that formal criminal proceedings would be required before the Council could invoke disciplinary sanctions based on alleged criminal conduct. On the issue of concurrent participation, the lawyers maintained that no law, regulation, or binding guideline in force at the time prohibited such an arrangement. “The most fundamental deficiency of the petition is that even if the declaration were taken at face value, the underlying conduct it purports to preclude was not prohibited by the Legal Education Act or any regulation in force at the time,” the letter read.
They also cited the Nigerian Law School Student Handbook for the 2010/2011 academic session, noting it contained no express prohibition against concurrent NYSC service. “The petitioner has annexed no official regulation, subsidiary legislation, or circular issued by the Council that explicitly bars contemporaneous Nigerian Law School studies and NYSC service,” the solicitors argued.
Constitutional Safeguards
The legal team maintained that any attempt to withdraw Kalu’s certificate would amount to a quasi-judicial sanction and must comply with constitutional safeguards under Sections 36(8) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution. No person can be punished for conduct not expressly prohibited by written law at the time it occurred. “It is pertinent to note that a withdrawal or cancellation of the Respondent’s qualifying certificate will be a penal outcome. Consequently, the Council cannot punish the Respondent by withdrawing his certificate where no written law proscribed contemporaneous Nigerian Law School studies and NYSC service or prescribed punishment for same,” the letter added.
Maintaining that the petition lacks a “legally cognisable foundation,” Kalu’s lawyers urged the Council to decline jurisdiction and dismiss the matter outright. “For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the petition is fundamentally deficient in law and ought to be rejected without more,” the letter concluded. The solicitors also noted that the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) had allegedly dismissed related allegations for lacking merit, and they remain available to provide further clarification if required.
