PROPRIETY OF POLITICAL APPOINTEES’ ENGAGEMENT IN PRIVATE LEGAL PRACTICE IN NIGERIA: ACHIKA & ORS. V. N.K.S.T. HOSPITAL MKAR IN PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) in David Achika & Ors. v. N.K.S.T. Hospital Mkar & Anor adopted the expressio unius est exclusio alterius rule of interpretation and held that a Special Adviser (SA) on legal matters appointed on a permanent basis, with salary is not prohibited from engaging in private law practice while serving because he is not a public officer (PO) within the framework of part 2 of Code of Conduct for Public Officers (CCPO). This paper, through doctrinal method, reviews this decision by examining the propriety of permitting a Special Adviser on full-time basis and remuneration to engage in private law practice (PLP). It interrogates the nuances of permanent employment/engagement and argues that while an SA is not mentioned in Part 2 of the CCPO, engagement in PLP fosters divided attention despite being remunerated on full-time basis and it is a detraction from the notion of full-time employment/engagement. It further contends that engagement in PLP can expose a political appointee to conflict of interest which should be avoided. It makes recommendations on the amendment of the 5^th Schedule to the 1999 Constitution to include political appointees within the prohibited ambit of persons to engage in private practice.