Fact check-- NBA had in 2015 rejected Ulegede’s Petition Against J-K Gadzama SAN

In a 2015 statement sighted by TRIPLENET, dated and signed by Mazi Afam Osigwe who was NBA General Secretary at the time, and currently NBA President, the bar was of the opinion that there was no basis to further inquire into the matter.

The Bar had rejected that petition brought by Ocha Ulegede over the Zaki Biam matter.

In his letter dated 16 July 2015, the NBA had through Osigwe its then GS, stated that the petition did not disclose an allegation of non-compliance with the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct.

The NBA had consequently stated that there was “no basis to further inquire into the matter by forwarding the Petition to a Disciplinary Panel.”

The circumstances surrounding the petition are also noteworthy.

At the time, Ulegede and Chris Alashi (the petitioner in Gadzama’s 2026 LPDC matter) were appearing together in the Zaki Biam matter, with their respective roles understood within the broader representation of the judgment creditors. In those circumstances, the complaint against Gadzama would naturally have been understood as arising from both lawyers.

It is therefore unclear whether Gadzama was aware at the time that Alashi considered himself to have a mandate separate and distinct from that of Ulegede. Given that the two lawyers were appearing together, a petition arising from their conduct in the matter would reasonably have been understood as concerning both of them.

The 2015 episode is now significant because Alashi has since brought a petition naming both Ulegede and Gadzama as respondents in connection with the same broader Zaki Biam dispute.

The fact that the NBA’s current President, who was then acting as General Secretary, had previously issued a letter on behalf of the NBA pursuant to Ulegede’s complaint against Gadzama and had found no basis to refer it to a disciplinary panel, provides an important piece of the history surrounding the controversy.

As more facts and documents emerge, it remains to be seen what changed between the position taken in 2015 and the subsequent findings in the matter, and what circumstances may have contributed to the different outcome.

These developments may also prompt a question on whether considerations beyond the issues raised in the original complaint played any role.