Likes Vs Justice: Is Kamangira’s strategy of exposing people without giving evidence going to work?
In recent weeks, human rights lawyer Alexious Kamangira has taken to social media to allege corrupt practices among judges and lawyers in Malawi, sparking a heated debate about the effectiveness and ethics of his approach.
While Kamangira’s intentions to expose corruption may stem from a genuine desire for judicial reform, his strategy of public accusations without providing concrete evidence raises significant concerns.
Kamangira’s posts have resonated with many citizens frustrated by perceived corruption in the judicial system. His vocal criticism aims to bring attention to the shortcomings of the legal framework in Malawi, tapping into a growing demand for transparency and integrity within the judiciary.
However, the manner in which he has chosen to pursue this agenda—through unverified allegations on Facebook—has drawn skepticism from legal experts and the public alike.
Critics argue that while accountability is crucial, Kamangira’s social media tactics may do more harm than good. By airing grievances online without presenting verifiable evidence, he risks perpetuating a culture of mob justice, where public sentiment can override due process and fairness. This approach may ultimately undermine the very reforms he seeks to achieve.
Legal experts emphasize that credible allegations require substantiation. Without tangible evidence, accusations can devolve into mere speculation or slander, eroding trust in the judicial system rather than strengthening it.
A recent letter from a group calling itself Concerned Citizens highlights this concern, calling Kamangira’s conduct “damaging” to the legal profession and suggesting that he should formally present his claims to appropriate authorities rather than venting frustrations online.
The legal community has long recognized the importance of due process in addressing corruption. Publicly shaming individuals without providing evidence not only jeopardizes the integrity of the accused but also risks distracting from systemic reforms that require collaborative efforts from legal institutions, government, and civil society.
Kamangira’s tactics raise questions about the potential implications for judicial independence. When accusations are made in the court of public opinion, they can influence public perception and sway judicial processes, creating an environment where judges and lawyers may feel pressured to conform to public sentiment rather than adhere to the law. This scenario could inhibit impartiality and fairness, which are cornerstones of a functioning judicial system.
Moreover, the backlash from Kamangira’s critics—including suggestions of mental health issues—may divert attention from legitimate concerns about corruption and reinforce stigmas that prevent meaningful discourse about reform.
As the discourse around judicial accountability evolves, Kamangira faces a critical juncture. While his efforts to expose corruption are commendable, the strategy of leveraging social media without supporting evidence may alienate potential allies and diminish the impact of his advocacy.
Moving forward, a more balanced approach that includes filing formal complaints with proper evidence, engaging with legal institutions, and fostering dialogue within the community could prove more effective in enacting real change. By aligning his advocacy with established legal processes, Kamangira could strengthen his position as a credible voice for reform rather than becoming a controversial figure in a divided landscape.
In conclusion, the challenges facing Malawi’s judicial system demand a multifaceted response rooted in evidence and collaboration. As calls for accountability grow louder, the need for responsible advocacy has never been more pressing. The legal community and concerned citizens alike must navigate this complex terrain thoughtfully, ensuring that the pursuit of justice does not come at the cost of fairness and integrity.
Follow and Subscribe Nyasa TV :
