WHY SANGWA HAS BEEN BANISHED FROM COURTS

Dear Editor,

ALLOW me through your newspaper to comment on the misconceptions from certain quarters of society, regarding the reason why Lawyer John Sangwa has been banned from appearing before any court in the country.

Those who are sympathetic to Mr Sangwa, including some media organisations, have been saying that he has been banned because he has been instrumental in criticising the Constitutional Court judgement on President Edgar Lungu’s eligibility to contest next year’s elections.

This is not the reason for his ban. I have read the memo from the acting Registrar of the High Court on social media. The reason given in the memo for his ban was professional misconduct.

Criticising a court judgement is not professional misconduct. Mr Sangwa had a right to criticise the judgement. However, what has landed him in trouble with the Judiciary and LAZ is the fact that in criticising the judgement, he crossed the red line by making unsubstantiated accusations against the judges who handed down the judgement.

Mr Sangwa called the judges corrupt, incompetent and ill-qualified to hold office as judges. This is the reason why he has been banned.

Mr Sangwa was in breach of the ethics of the legal profession by making such accusations against the judges, publicly, knowing fully well that they will have no forum to defend themselves.

All Lawyers are officers of the court and therefore, they are expected to respect the courts, even if they do not agree with the views of the court.

In any profession, breach of ethics amounts to unprofessional conduct and there are sanctions. We have seen and heard of doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers etc, being sanctioned for unprofessional conduct. The legal profession is no exception.

There is also an argument as to why Mr Sangwa has been banned from appearing in all the courts in the country, and yet his criticism was directed at the ConCourt judges who delivered the judgement.

This argument in my view falls apart because an insult or an unsubstantiated accusation on one judge is a dent on the entire Judiciary. It would not have made sense to ban Mr Sangwa from appearing in the ConCourt only, but allow him to appear in the other courts.

This decision is intended to send a message to all lawyers to observe the legal ethics in their conduct, failure to which sanctions will follow.

Further, why should Mr Sangwa continue to appear before judges whom he has labelled corrupt, incompetent and ill-qualified? Mr Sangwa should swallow his pride and render an unreserved apology to the judges of the ConCourt and the Judiciary at large. He is a senior lawyer who should lead by example to junior lawyers and would-be lawyers. He should not send a message to junior lawyers and wouldbe lawyers that it is okay to insult judges. MOBBRAY MWEWA, Lusaka.