Protesters on Wednesday storm the Body of Benchers demanding the probe of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Benjamin Kalu over alleged irregularities in his National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) and Nigerian Law School records.
The protesters led by Civil Society Groups for Good Governance (CSGGG) in its petition passed vote of no confidence on the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee over its failure to discharge its statutory responsibilities.
The protesters were armed with various placards including: “We will not rest until the truth comes out; No certificate, no office, it’s is simple; No certificate, no legitimacy, step down; Kalu, the constitution is not a suggestion; The law applies to everyone including you; A leader with nothing to hide hides nothing; Accountability is not optional, Benjamin Kalu; Stop buying time, show documents; No more foolery, produce your certificate; The people demand proof, not excuse.”
Speaking on behalf of the protesters, Mr. Dominic Ogakwu said their position arose from the Committee’s continued failure, refusal, and neglect to act on a petition already before it, raising grave allegations concerning the call to Bar and professional standing of Kalu.
He recalled that a petition touching on these issues was formally filed before the Committee by John Martins Esq and assigned reference BB/LPDC/1948/2026, dated 20 January 2026.
Ogakwu noted that the petition reportedly raised serious questions relating to alleged inconsistencies between Kalu’s NYSC service year and period of enrolment at the Nigerian Law School, Enugu Campus.
He added that the allegations, if proven, would go to the very root of the integrity of the process by which an individual was admitted to the Nigerian Bar.
Ogakwu pointed out that despite the gravity of the issues raised and the significant public interest involved, the Committee has failed to take visible steps toward investigating or determining the petition.
He stated: “The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee exists precisely for the purpose of safeguarding the integrity, discipline, and credibility of the legal profession in Nigeria.
“Its responsibilities are not discretionary exercises to be undertaken only when convenient; they are statutory duties imposed by law.
“When allegations touching on the integrity of a legal practitioner — particularly one occupying a high public office — are brought before the Committee, the expectation of the public is that the body will act: promptly, transparently, and
without fear or favour.
“The continued silence and apparent inaction of the Committee in the face of these allegations raises serious concerns about the willingness and ability of the body to discharge its statutory mandate.”
Ogakwu stressed that the failure of the Committee to address this matter has already generated widespread public concern and has begun to erode confidence in the disciplinary framework of the Nigerian legal profession.
He emphasised that a regulatory body that appears unable or unwilling to address serious allegations affecting the profession risks conveying the impression that some individuals are beyond scrutiny or accountability.
Such a perception, Ogakwu noted, was profoundly damaging to the rule of law and to the reputation of the Nigerian Bar.
He said: “In light of the foregoing, the Civil Society Groups for Good Governance hereby declare a vote of no confidence in the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee for its failure to discharge its statutory responsibility in the matter of petition BB/LPDC/1948/2026.
“Unless urgent steps are taken to investigate and determine the issues raised in that petition, the continued existence of the Committee in its present form will increasingly be questioned by members of the public.
“Should the Committee continue to ignore or delay action on this matter, the public may be compelled to take further lawful steps, including:
sustained civic engagement and public advocacy directed at the Committee.”
Ogakwu also vowed to initiate appropriate judicial proceedings to compel the discharge of the Committee’s statutory duties and to review the continued relevance of a body perceived to have outlived its usefulness.
He urged the Committee to act decisively and restore public trust in the disciplinary system of the legal profession.