Faced with 'wrongful allegations' of bribery, judge recuses herself

23 April 2021 · Carmel Rickard

A prominent judge of Malawi’s high court has announced her recusal from a case involving the death of a woman allegedly at the hands of her husband. Judge Fiona Mwale has recused herself from the trial following claims by the family of the dead woman that bribe money had been collected to pay the presiding officer in the matter. She said that there was no truth in the claim, but that she felt she had to quit the trial so that the bribery allegation could be investigated. The trial has now been adjourned so that another judge may be appointed to deal with the case.

Read judgment

The contentious matter of recusal has emerged again. This time it takes the form of what could well be a deliberate attempt to force a judge to stand down from a controversial matter she has been hearing.

Judge Fiona Mwale of Malawi’s high court, was presiding in a criminal case where the accused is Mohamed Shahin Mahomed Iqbar Juma. In a judgment on recusal, delivered last week, she noted that Juma is accused of having caused the death of his wife, Zaheera Juma, ‘with malice aforethought’, during December 2019.

Juma pleaded not guilty and has tried repeatedly to persuade the court to allow him out on bail, so far with no success. In July 2020 the court found he had a case to answer. Juma’s lawyers have since asked the court to reconsider that decision, but that application was dismissed.

Bombshell

The trial is now at the stage in which Juma is explaining his defence to the charge.

Then came a bombshell, as Judge Mwale explained in her decision: ‘Today, on 15 April 2021, during the defendant’s testimony in his defence, he testified to the effect that his father-in-law, Jamal Akbanie, [in other words, the father of Juma’s deceased wife] broadcast on a family social media group (WhatsApp) with membership within and beyond Malawi, on Wednesday 9 June (presumably 2020), amongst other issues, that the Khatrii community had organised between K20 000 000 and K25 000 000 to bribe the judge in the matter.

‘It was a rallying call for members of his community to turn up at the court in solidarity against the release of the accused. An audio recording of the said Jamal Akbanie making this broadcast was played in court.’

‘Sacred principle’

Judge Mwale needed to reach a swift decision about her response and she did so with a written decision issued the same day. In her ruling, she said that she was a judicial officer who had sworn to uphold the law and protect the constitution. She had therefore ‘to abide by the sacred principle that “justice must not only be done, it must also be seen as being done”.’

The bribery accusation, though untrue, was now in the public domain, she noted. ‘Any credible action taken in response to the accusation by the authorities (should the need arise) cannot proceed while I am handling the matter.’

‘After careful reflection, with the utmost regret in view of the advanced stage to which this matter has progressed, I have decided to recuse myself.

‘Wrongful allegations’

‘My recusal shall pave the way for justice to be seen as being done, with the case being presided over by a judicial officer who has no cloud of wrongful allegations hanging over his or her head.’

However, she stressed, she reserved the right, ‘as an aggrieved person’ to protect her reputation through the civil courts. She then adjourned the case for it to be continued after the matter has been reallocated to another judge.

The question of when recusal would be appropriate is becoming something of an elephant in the courtrooms of the region. There have been cases where an allegation of the kind made in the Juma matter was brought specifically to ensure that a judge, seen as unfriendly to one side or the other, was forced to step away so that a different judge had to take on the matter.

There have also been cases where it would have seemed highly appropriate for the judge to stand down, but he or she has not done so.

Judge Mwale has won a number of awards for her work on the bench, including being honoured as ‘judge of the year’ for 2020 by Women Lawyers Malawi. In particular, she is seen as someone deeply concerned about violence against women and children.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.