A fresh legal storm is brewing around the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Benjamin Okezie Kalu, following a petition challenging the validity of his enrolment as a legal practitioner and the authenticity of his National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, participation.
A former First Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mr. John Aikpokpo-Martins, has formally petitioned the Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Committee, LPDC, urging it to investigate what he described as a “fraudulent enrolment” of the lawmaker on the Roll of Legal Practitioners kept at the Supreme Court.
In separate correspondences to the LPDC and the Director-General of the National Youth Service Corps, Aikpokpo-Martins alleged that Kalu unlawfully combined his NYSC service year with attendance at the Nigerian Law School, Enugu Campus — an act he contends contravenes both the Legal Practitioners Act and the NYSC Act.
Allegation of double participation
At the heart of the petition is the claim that Kalu was mobilised for NYSC from March 9, 2010 to March 8, 2011, but simultaneously attended the Nigerian Law School between April 23, 2010 and July 1, 2011.
According to the petitioner, Section 2(3) of the NYSC Act mandates a continuous one-year national service, making it “statutorily impossible” for a corps member to lawfully engage in full-time academic training at the same time.
He further cited what he described as a strict policy of the Nigerian Law School and the Council of Legal Education prohibiting students from serving as corps members during their period of study.
In an affidavit deposed to before the LPDC, Aikpokpo-Martins averred that Kalu, who was admitted into the Nigerian Law School under the name Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu before effecting a change of name, solemnly declared on April 23, 2010 that he was not and would not engage in employment or participate in the NYSC during his course of study.
The petitioner, however, maintained that documentary evidence — including the NYSC discharge certificate allegedly issued to Kalu — shows that he continuously participated in the service year within the same period.
Questioning call to Bar
Kalu was called to the Nigerian Bar on September 6, 2011 and subsequently enrolled as a legal practitioner at the Supreme Court with enrolment number SCN/078630.
But Aikpokpo-Martins insists that the circumstances surrounding the alleged overlap raise fundamental questions about whether the Deputy Speaker met the mandatory 70 per cent attendance requirement of the Nigerian Law School — a prerequisite for certification and call to Bar.
“It is either he did not attend the Nigerian Law School as required, or he did not lawfully participate in the NYSC for a continuous period of one year,” the petitioner contended.
He further argued that a false declaration made to secure admission into the Law School, if established, would cast doubt on the respondent’s character and fitness to practise law, noting that good character is a condition precedent for admission to the Bar.
Call for sanctions, prosecution
In his petition to the LPDC, Aikpokpo-Martins urged the disciplinary body to investigate the allegations and impose appropriate sanctions under Section 11(1)(c) of the Legal Practitioners Act if the claims are proven.
Simultaneously, in a letter dated February 9, 2026 to the NYSC Director-General, he called for the withdrawal of Certificate of National Service No. A001773067 reportedly issued to Kalu on March 8, 2011.
He also demanded the prosecution of the Deputy Speaker under Sections 13(1)(b), 13(3) and 13(4) of the NYSC Act, which prescribe penalties including fines and imprisonment for failure to serve continuously for one year or for making false statements in relation to the scheme.
The petitioner emphasised that the matter transcends partisan considerations, arguing that the high office occupied by Kalu requires strict adherence to the rule of law.
“The exalted position he presently occupies must showcase the highest standards of integrity, transparency and adherence to the law,” he stated.
Subpoena threat
Aikpokpo-Martins disclosed his intention to apply for subpoenas compelling the Director-General of the NYSC and the Director-General of the Nigerian Law School to produce official records, including call-up letters, attendance registers, payment records and discharge documents.
He maintained that such records would conclusively establish whether there was indeed a simultaneous participation in both programmes.
Wider implications
The development has triggered debate within legal circles over the sanctity of professional standards and the integrity of Nigeria’s youth service scheme.
Senior lawyers contacted by this platform noted that the LPDC has the jurisdiction to investigate allegations of professional misconduct, including fraudulent enrolment, if properly established.
They, however, cautioned that the allegations remain claims until tested before the appropriate authorities.
“If there was any misrepresentation in securing admission to the Law School or participation in the NYSC, it is a serious issue. But it must be proven with credible evidence,” one senior advocate said.
Others observed that the NYSC Act’s requirement of continuous service has historically been strictly interpreted, making any proven breach potentially consequential.
Silence from respondent
As at press time, there was no official response from Kalu to the allegations contained in the petitions. Efforts to reach his media office were unsuccessful.
The NYSC and the LPDC have also yet to publicly indicate whether formal investigations have commenced.
Rule of law test
The unfolding controversy places the spotlight once again on the intersection of public office, professional regulation and statutory compliance.
For the petitioner, the issue is clear: institutions must not look the other way when confronted with allegations touching on integrity.
Whether the LPDC and the NYSC will act swiftly — and what their findings may ultimately reveal — remains to be seen. But the petitions have already ignited what may become one of the most consequential professional scrutiny cases involving a high-ranking public official in recent times.
