By Burnett Munthali
The Magistrates and Judges Association of Malawi (MAJAM) has recently invited lawyer Alexious Kamangila to an interaction session regarding his social media posts critiquing Judge Ken Manda’s handling of cases. Kamangila’s posts specifically targeted the Judge’s conduct in the Mukteshwar Sugar Mills Limited versus Salima Sugar Company Limited case, sparking a broader conversation on the balance between judicial accountability and freedom of speech in Malawi’s legal profession.
The context behind this interaction reflects growing tensions between the judiciary and the legal fraternity, where digital platforms are increasingly being used by lawyers to express dissatisfaction with the courts. In Kamangila’s case, his criticisms were centered on alleged mishandling of the Mukteshwar Sugar Mills case, accusing Judge Manda of bias or incompetence, claims that carry significant weight in a legal ecosystem reliant on trust in judicial decisions.
The MAJAM invitation to Kamangila is noteworthy as it signifies the judiciary’s attempt to assert control over how judicial officers are portrayed in the public eye, particularly on social media. This move can be seen as a step towards safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary, which remains vulnerable to public perceptions shaped by the often-unchecked narratives shared online. Kamangila’s criticisms, regardless of their accuracy, touch on a sensitive area where judicial conduct, when publicly questioned, can erode confidence in the legal system.
However, Kamangila’s case also highlights the importance of lawyers’ freedom to speak on matters of public interest, especially when they believe that justice may have been compromised. The judiciary, while independent, should not be immune to scrutiny, particularly if decisions appear to deviate from legal norms or fairness. The challenge, therefore, lies in striking a balance between maintaining judicial decorum and allowing legitimate critiques from within the legal profession.
At the heart of this matter is the question of whether public critiques of judges—particularly through informal channels like social media—constitute valid legal discourse or amount to undermining the judiciary. MAJAM’s approach in inviting Kamangila for an interaction session suggests an openness to dialogue rather than outright censure, indicating that the association recognizes the need for constructive engagement with its critics.
Nonetheless, this development may serve as a precedent for future interactions between the judiciary and the legal community regarding public comments on judicial proceedings. As social media becomes an increasingly common platform for discourse, Malawian legal authorities may need to develop clearer guidelines on how lawyers can responsibly voice concerns without compromising the integrity of the judiciary.
Kamangila’s upcoming session with MAJAM will likely serve as a barometer for the judiciary’s tolerance for criticism in the digital age. For now, it is crucial for both sides to foster a culture of mutual respect and professionalism, ensuring that lawyers can continue to advocate for justice while protecting the dignity and independence of the judiciary.
As the legal fraternity watches this case unfold, it serves as a reminder that the boundaries between free speech and judicial respect must be navigated carefully. The outcome of Kamangila’s interaction with MAJAM will likely have implications for how both the judiciary and the legal profession engage in the public domain going forward.
