The Hypocrisy of Alexious Kamangira’s Judiciary Purge

Lawyer Alexious Kamangira has stormed onto the national stage like a self-anointed prophet of justice, embarking on a one-man mission to ‘cleanse the judiciary’ through a digital trial by fire. His preferred courtroom? Facebook. His gavel? Livestreams and incendiary posts naming and shaming allegedly corrupt judges and lawyers. While public accountability is the bedrock of any democracy, Kamangira’s vigilante-style crusade is riddled with contradictions and legal ironies that cannot be ignored.

As an officer of the court, Kamangira should know that justice is not a matter of public spectacle but one of due process. The law demands evidence, not mere accusations hurled into the social media abyss.

While every lawyer—and indeed every citizen—has the right to express their concerns, our noble profession demands more than just grandstanding on Facebook. We are bound by a code of ethics, by the principles of due process, and by the foundational tenet that one is innocent until proven guilty by a competent court of law.

The courts provide remedies for grievances, and professional misconduct by judicial officers and lawyers has its own disciplinary channels. One cannot simply hurl allegations like confetti at a wedding and expect them to transform into a solid legal case.

But here’s the kicker: he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. And Kamangira’s hands are anything but clean.

In September 2024, Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal Judge, Justice Dorothy Nyakaunda Kamanga, found Kamangira guilty of perjury for fabricating facts and lying under oath in an attempt to secure the release of his client. The ruling, delivered while she was sitting as a High Court judge, exposed Kamangira’s dishonest and unethical conduct in his defense of Wyson Big Bannet, who, alongside Myson Viera Chizizira, was convicted of murder in 2013.

Justice Kamanga’s rebuke was scathing. She lambasted Kamangira for exploiting judicial delays and misleading the courts through a series of deceptive legal maneuvers. In her ruling, she observed:

“It is quite perplexing that the defendant and his legal counsel, who has thus far neglected to furnish the necessary documentation relevant to sentencing, are disseminating erroneous information about the legal status of the defendant and the progress of the proceedings in this homicide case, seemingly aimed at undermining the judiciary as a foundational institution and its judicial officers.”

The learned judge did not mince words about Kamangira’s professional conduct:

“The current efforts by his counsel to indirectly challenge the conviction by portraying and staging the convict in a motion and in the media as a long-term remand prisoner is to ‘act without diligence’ and is deemed unprofessional and unethical conduct on the part of the lawyer, which the court will not condone.”

More damning still, Justice Kamanga pointed out that Kamangira engaged in perjury within paragraphs 9 to 13 of his sworn affidavit, falsely claiming that his client was awaiting judgment, despite the fact that the conviction had already been delivered in his presence back in 2018. In legal terms, this isn’t just a misstep—it’s a calculated fabrication that strikes at the core of professional ethics.

For context, perjury under Section 102 of the Penal Code carries a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment. Fabricating evidence under Section 105 is similarly punishable by seven years behind bars, while false swearing before a commissioner for oaths, as per Section 106, could land one in prison for two years. By these measures, Kamangira should, by all accounts, be trading his lawyer’s robe for a prison jumpsuit.

Which brings us back to his self-proclaimed fight against corruption within the judiciary. If Kamangira truly believes in an uncompromising justice system, should he not start by holding himself accountable? If the Malawi Police Service, the Malawi Law Society, and the Judiciary were as ruthlessly efficient as he demands, he wouldn’t be leading this crusade—he would be serving time for perjury.

Kamangira’s accusations, flung carelessly into the digital abyss without supporting evidence, do not serve justice. They fuel public outrage but fail the legal test of proof. The law does not allow us to make reckless allegations without due diligence, and in doing so, he is bringing the profession into disrepute. If every lawyer or citizen were to take the same route, where would it end? Should we abandon the courts altogether and settle our disputes in the comments section of a Facebook post?

Justice is not performance art, nor is it a platform for disgraced lawyers to reinvent themselves as anti-corruption messiahs. The legal profession demands integrity, diligence, and respect for due process. Kamangira’s campaign, marred by his own ethical failures, is not a fight for justice but a desperate bid for relevance.

If he wishes to be taken seriously as a reformist, he must first clean his own house before throwing stones at others. Otherwise, his crusade is nothing more than a charade—loud, theatrical, and ultimately hollow.

Sharing is caring!