The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) has exonerated former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa (SAN), from allegations linking him to irregularities in the compensation process for victims of the 2001 Zaki Biam-Gbeji massacre, while sanctioning two senior lawyers for professional misconduct.
The decision, delivered by the LPDC, followed months of controversy that trailed Aondoakaa shortly after he emerged as the governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), with claims circulating on social media accusing him of frustrating and shortchanging the payment of court-awarded compensation to victims.
In its ruling, the disciplinary body identified prominent legal practitioner, Chief Joe Kyari Gadzama (SAN), and another lawyer, Ocha Ulegede, as culpable of breaching the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, 2023, in their handling of the compensation process.
The LPDC, in a judgment delivered by Justice Halima Ibrahim, held that both lawyers were liable for misconduct and accordingly imposed sanctions. Ulegede was suspended from legal practice for two years, while Gadzama received a three-year suspension, both effective from the date of the judgment.
The sanctions stemmed from a petition marked BB/LPDC/1314/2024, filed by a legal practitioner, Chris Alashi, who accused the respondents of professional infractions in the course of handling matters related to the Zaki Biam victims’ settlement.
The LPDC’s findings effectively cleared Aondoakaa of any wrongdoing in the matter, dismissing insinuations that he used his office as AGF to obstruct or manipulate compensation payments.
The Zaki Biam massacre occurred in October 2001, when troops of the Nigerian Army carried out a military operation in parts of Benue State following the killing of 19 soldiers.
The operation led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians and widespread destruction of property in Zaki Biam and surrounding communities.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court awarded compensation to victims, with the Federal Government agreeing to pay N8 billion as restitution for the losses incurred during the incident.
However, documents obtained from the Federal Ministry of Justice indicated that the compensation framework and valuation were concluded before Aondoakaa assumed office as Attorney-General in 2007, during the tenure of his predecessor, Chief Bayo Ojo (SAN), under the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Officials familiar with the matter disclosed that the Federal Government and independent valuers, including those engaged by the Nigerian Army, had arrived at the N8 billion figure as the assessed cost of damages at the time.
According to sources within the ministry, the initial delay in the payment process was largely due to the refusal of affected communities to accept the compensation, which they reportedly considered inadequate.
“The judgment was delivered when Chief Bayo Ojo was AGF, years before Aondoakaa assumed office. The Federal Government had already agreed to pay N8 billion, but the beneficiaries declined the offer at the time,” a senior official said.
Further findings revealed that upon assumption of office, Aondoakaa made efforts to persuade the victims to accept the agreed compensation, stressing that he lacked the authority to unilaterally alter the amount approved by the Federal Government.
“He appealed to the communities to accept the N8 billion since the figure had been jointly determined and approved. The refusal persisted throughout his tenure, and the offer was only accepted many years later,” another official disclosed.
The official added that similar compensation frameworks were adopted in other cases, including the Odi incident in Bayelsa State, reinforcing the position that the AGF could not independently vary such agreements once approved at the federal level.
The LPDC ruling is expected to put to rest lingering controversies surrounding Aondoakaa’s role in the compensation process, particularly amid heightened political scrutiny following his emergence as a governorship candidate.
Legal analysts note that the sanctions imposed on the affected lawyers underscore the judiciary’s resolve to uphold professional standards and accountability within the legal profession, especially in sensitive matters involving public interest and victims’ rights.
The development also highlights the enduring complexities surrounding post-conflict compensation and the interplay between legal processes, government policy, and community expectations in Nigeria’s justice system.
Ends.
