The Absolute Corruption of Absolute Power

Dr. Adoko is a Ugandan-born, and, among many other things, he is a London-trained barrister, an author of several noted books, a former President of the Uganda Law Society and, as the British judiciary are quickly learning to their cost, formidable in litigation. You can also throw into his mixed bag of qualifications that he is an American-trained social anthropologist.

He was brought up in law to believe completely in the fairness, traditions and impartiality of the Bar. Clearly, from what he writes, one of his heroes was Lord Denning, and Dr. Adoko is fond of quoting the great lawyer to prove his case.

The issue itself is screamingly simple. Dr. Adoko is a barrister who wishes to practise as a solicitor. He works in a solicitor's office in London and wants to be on the "front- line" of his profession. His powerful knowledge of the law and his talents, he is sure, are far better serviced advising the litigants themselves, face to face. The British judicial establishment won't let him.

To change roles he must be exempted. If you are a white English barrister who has worked for a solicitor for two years, then the exemption is all but automatic. With Dr. Adoko it has been all but impossible.

This is the very nub of the matter.

But, as in all cases where miscarriages begin to clearly manifest themselves, then the webs of intrigue and covert activity underneath the veneer begin to create fog and muddle so that the very issues themselves become clouded. And this is a case where the ranks of the established judiciary have closed and then locked tight.

Very early on, Dr. Adoko suspected simple racial prejudice and he set out to prove it - by doing what he does best. Resorting to the law itself. This started simply enough, but the web got even wider. Curiously, as it got wider, it also got foggier until now the doctor is quite simply throwing the book at the lot of them.

You really do have to know your subject if you are willing and able to bring cases against the Law Society, the Bar, the Litigation Department of the Lord Chancellor's office and a High Court Judge. The case he is pleading is to the Court of Appeal against the decision of a judge to strike out his suit against the Law Society for damages of abuse of Office.

He has produced to the court no less than 30 cases of malpractice during the six years the official refusal has been going on.

The Law Society refused to let him see the official two- year exemption policy. This clearly allows any English barrister-in-law to become a solicitor after he has worked for an English firm of solicitors for two years. Not revealing the document, Dr Adoko claims vehemently, is fraudulent.

Virtually every English barrister who happened to be white, was granted the exemption almost automatically. Documents which would prove this and, under the whole spirit of English law cannot be protected if an allegation of abuse of power is made, remain steadfastly protected.

The doctor has produced a whole battery of precedence to illustrate his point. In fact, his point - in law - cannot be denied but continues to be so.

As Lord Denning himself put it: "A public body must not misuse its power And it is a misuse of power for it to act unlawfully or unjustly towards a private citizen where there is no overriding public interest to warrant it."

There are very few cases which exactly correspond to Dr. Adoko's. But anyone who is conversant with the 800 or so cases which end in an unsatisfactory conclusion on appeal in the UK each year will know that the process of law can grind to a halt very quickly when there is no where else to go.

It is all down to "leave to appeal" and if a judge decides there are no grounds for appeal, then that is often that. And it leaves the unsatisfied litigant no other recourse than to try unorthodox measures. From Scallywag's researches the "leave to appeal" legislation - often depending as it does on a single man's opinion - causes more disquiet to more people that anything else in common law.

In Dr. Adoko's case it appears that virtually the entire judiciaries have conspired to close the books. Dr. Adoko is spending what is left of his sanity desperately trying to keep them open.

Surely, it is significant when a man from their own ranks accuses them of injustice and fraud.

It is a unique case in that Dr Adoko is himself a learned advocate fighting his own adopted establishment. One for which when he first joined the profession he had the utmost respect. Yet, as a litigant in person, he is facing the same frustrating, often agonising rivers of glue as so many who have found themselves alone when trying to right an injustice. And not half as qualified to fight on as he clearly is.

If a man of Dr Adoko's obvious eloquence and expert knowledge of the law comes up against its brick walls, what chance have ordinary folk?

But let us consider the simple chronology of events.

In the fifty-eight years between 1931 when he was born and 1989 when he returned to London (as a refugee from the brutal regime of Idi Amin) to practise as a barrister, his CV is little short of spectacular. On his arrival in London he had immediately applied for exemption so that he could practise as a solicitor. He was informed he did not qualify automatically. In 1992 he joined a firm of solicitors and applied again. Despite an earlier recommendation from its own executive, he was turned down.

In 1993 he had become a valued member of his employer's legal team and he applied again, this time pointing out in some detail that he was amply qualified on all the criteria and that there was absolutely no legal impediment to refuse him. He was refused.

He appealed, citing breaches of regulations. He further charged negligence and abuse of power and he applied for a judicial review to decide the matter. The Law Society then informed him they had taken Counsel's advice and consequently they had decided to withdraw their decision.

That is, they were wrong and Dr Adoko was right. But the Law Society then began prevaricating and playing for time. They asked the two firms of solicitors who Adoko had been associated with to give written testimonials, which were quickly forthcoming.

The Society then began deliberately to mislead the Judicial Review by stating that the pass mark was 50%, whereas in reality it was 40% and Dr Adoko had achieved 43%. He was again refused.

In August 1994 went back to the Society with a fresh application after he had, through discovery, found out two positive areas of malpractice. They simply refused to listen and turned him down. Deciding that he had done everything possible along the proper paths, he decided to take everything to an Industrial Tribunal.

At this the Law Society actually admitted that under law Dr Adoko had been discriminated against. Amazingly, however, they still refused his application.

Despite further quite ardent applications, including expert opinions which upheld his claims, in 1995 the Society was still prevaricating and asked Dr Adoko to produce yet more "proof of knowledge." Adoko then complained to the bar with a simple allegation that the Law Society had acted criminally.

The Society then exempted Dr Adoko - at long last - but with a final sting to the tail, they deferred enrolment pending the outcome of the Bar's decision.

Eighteen months later, in June of this year (1997), Dr Adoko decided to throw the book at the lot of them.

Dr. Akena Adoko is Managing Editor of
Anti-Sleaze Magazine