FRANCIS XAVIER SOSU vs. THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL AND FRANCIS XAVIER SOSU vs. THE GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL

The appellant, a lawyer, was charged with two counts of grave misconduct under the Legal Profession Professional Conduct and Etiquette Rules and the Legal Profession Act before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council. Initially pleading 'Guilty with Explanation', he later pleaded 'Guilty' simpliciter and was convicted and suspended from legal practice for one year on the first count and three years on the second count. The appellant filed two notices of appeal against the Committee's decision, but these were filed at the High Court Registry instead of the proper forum. Subsequent motions for stay of execution were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on jurisdictional grounds, leading to the appellant seeking special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

RULING APPAU, JSC.: The applicant, who is a lawyer by profession, was charged under two counts of Grave Misconduct contrary to Rules 2(1) and 9(9) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 [L.I.613] and Section 19(5) of the Legal Profession Act [Act 32] of 1961 before the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council. The applicant, who initially pleaded ‘Guilty with Explanation’ to the two charges, later changed his plea and pleaded ‘Guilty’ simpliciter to the two charges. The Committee convicted him on both counts on his own plea. Section 16(1) of Act 32 makes provision for sanctions that the Disciplinary Committee could mete out to lawyers charged before it on the offence of Grave Misconduct. It reads: “A lawyer, who is found guilty of grave misconduct in a professional respect, including a conduct which, in pursuance of the Rules, is treated as grave misconduct in a professional respect, is liable (a) To have the name of...