The Malawi Law Society (MLS) says it is unable to take disciplinary action against lawyer Alexious Kamangila, who was recently found guilty of perjury, unless the High Court issues a formal directive for an inquiry into his conduct.
Kamangila’s conviction stems from a ruling delivered by Justice Dorothy NyaKaunda Kamanga on September 16, 2024, in the case of Republic v Chizizira and Another (Criminal Case No. 104 of 2011). The court found that Kamangila knowingly made false statements in a sworn affidavit filed on July 12, 2022, in support of an application for the release and discharge of his client. His misrepresentations—particularly in paragraphs 9 to 13 of his sworn statement—amounted to perjury, an offense that strikes at the very foundation of the justice system.
In a strongly worded judgment, Justice Kamanga lambasted Kamangila’s actions, describing them as a deliberate attempt to mislead the court and undermine judicial processes.
“Counsel Alexious Kamangila engaged in perjury in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the sworn statement in support of the application for release, discharge, and effective remedy that was filed on 12 July 2022, wherein he swore that the defendant is innocent and awaiting judgment—despite being fully aware that the defendant appeared in court on 19 April 2018 for the delivery of judgment.”
The judge further criticized Kamangila’s failure to adhere to proper legal procedures, noting that his actions amounted to professional misconduct.
“Had the legal practitioner followed the appropriate procedures for engaging in the matter, he might have respected the previous legal proceedings and avoided fabricating facts, lying, and ultimately committing perjury.”
MLS awaits High Court directive
Despite the damning findings against Kamangila, MLS Honorary Secretary Gabriel Gift Chembezi clarified that the Law Society cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings on its own unless the High Court invokes its statutory powers under the Legal Practitioners and Legal Education Act.
“Usually, when a court determines that a lawyer’s conduct warrants investigation, it issues an order directing the Disciplinary Committee to conduct an inquiry. The High Court has this power under Section 90(3) of the Legal Practitioners and Legal Education Act,” said Chembezi.
He further explained that the High Court is also empowered, under Section 89(1) of the same law, to impose sanctions on a lawyer after due inquiry. However, since no such action has been taken by the judiciary in this case, the MLS is unable to act independently.
“If a court does not exercise either of these options under the law, it becomes difficult for the Law Society to act on statements made in passing concerning lawyers who are not direct parties to a case before the court,” Chembezi added.
A legal and ethical crossroads
The judgment against Kamangila places both the judiciary and the legal profession in a difficult position. If the judiciary remains silent on disciplinary action, it risks setting a dangerous precedent—one that could embolden legal practitioners to engage in perjury and other unethical conduct without consequence. Conversely, if the MLS fails to take proactive measures, it could erode public confidence in its ability to regulate legal practitioners and uphold the integrity of the profession.
Should the High Court decide to invoke its disciplinary powers, Kamangila could face formal proceedings, which may result in a reprimand, suspension, or even disbarment—depending on the severity of the misconduct established.
For now, the legal fraternity watches closely, as the case raises critical questions about accountability within Malawi’s justice system and the mechanisms in place to safeguard the profession’s ethical standards.
