Solicitors to the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, have urged the Council of Legal Education to dismiss a petition seeking the withdrawal of his Nigerian Law School qualifying certificate, describing the application as “fundamentally deficient in law” and lacking any legal foundation.

In a letter dated April 28, 2026, and signed by Chukwuebuka S. Okeke of Olaniwun Ajayi LP, Kalu’s legal team responded to a petition filed on March 16, 2026, by lawyer John Aikpokpo Martins.

The petitioner had sought the cancellation of Kalu’s certificate on the grounds that his attendance at the Nigerian Law School allegedly overlapped with his participation in the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme.

But in their response, Kalu’s lawyers argued that the Council of Legal Education, being a statutory body established under the Legal Education (Consolidation, etc.) Act, can only exercise powers expressly granted to it by law.

According to the legal team, there is “no express statutory power” empowering the Council to retrospectively withdraw or cancel a qualifying certificate already issued to a candidate.

They further contended that any disciplinary authority exercisable by the Council is “necessarily narrow” and can only arise in circumstances involving “manifest vitiating criminal conduct,” adding that no such conduct had been established against the Deputy Speaker.

The lawyers urged the Council to reject the petition on three principal grounds: absence of criminal misconduct, reliance on an unsworn declaration, and lack of any legal prohibition against simultaneous participation in the NYSC scheme and the Nigerian Law School programme.

“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.

The legal team also argued that the declaration relied upon by the petitioner was unsworn and therefore “carries no force of law,” stressing that formal criminal proceedings would ordinarily be required before the Council could invoke disciplinary sanctions based on alleged criminal conduct.

On the issue of concurrent participation in NYSC and Law School activities, the solicitors maintained that no law, regulation, or binding institutional guideline in force at the material 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 namely concurrent participation in the NYSC scheme and the Nigerian Law School programme was not prohibited by the Legal Education Act or any regulation in force at the time,” the letter read.

The lawyers added that neither the Legal Education Act nor the Legal Practitioners Act contains any provision disqualifying a person from undertaking the Nigerian Law School programme while simultaneously participating in the NYSC scheme.

They further cited the Nigerian Law School Student Handbook for the 2010/2011 academic session, noting that 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.

The legal team also maintained that any attempt by the Council to withdraw Kalu’s certificate would amount to a quasi-judicial sanction and must therefore comply strictly with constitutional safeguards under Sections 36(8) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.

According to them, no person can be punished for conduct that was 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 urged the Council of Legal Education to dismiss the petition in the same manner the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) had allegedly dismissed related allegations for lacking merit, adding that they remain available to provide further clarification if required.