I was born on 01/01/1931 in Uganda in Fast Africa. On 09/02/1960, 1 was awarded the degree of the Utter Bar, also known as Barrister-at-Law Degree, by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, London.

From 1960 to 1962 I practised law in the British Colony of Uganda. And, from 1962 to 1986 I practised law in the independent states of Uganda and Tanzania.

In 1969-1971 I was elected President of the Uganda Law Society. In 1986 I sought and was granted refugee status in the United Kingdom. I was subsequently given permanent residence in the United Kingdom.

Though an English Barrister, I have been, for 10 years refused admission as a solicitor on the ground that I had accused the Law Society of racism. The 4 Law Society officials, known as the Gang of Four, or the Four Mafia, whom, on the basis of undisputed documentary evidence, I accused of perjury, fraud, racism, and treachery [10] to the laws of this country, and of having committed serious criminal offences, which they have been trying to cover up, by series of conspiracies to defeat the end of justice, are:

1. The Law Society Director Mr. John Rendall.
2. The Law Society Head of Department Mr. Nicholas Saunders.
3. The Law Society Manager Mr. Mark Hone.
4. And the Law Society Solicitor Mrs. Anne Coles.

By one excuse after the other, they refused, for some 10 years now, to admit me into the Roll of Solicitors. The followings are some of the unlawful excuses

15 OF THE MANY COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE LAW SOCIETY

* Although marks for exemption of an English Barrister to become an English Solicitor was hardly 34%, I was refused exemption after I had obtained 43% marks!

* Although English Barristers with 8 years experience in legal practice, were automatically exempted to become solicitors, yet, the legal requirement for exemption was concealed from me for years!
[11]

• When I learnt about it, I was still refused exemption in spite of over 30 years of legal practice!
• Although the practice of the Law Society was, as it still is, for English Barristers who have practised law in the firms of English solicitors for 2 years, to be given automatic exemption for admission as solicitors, yet, I was refused exemption after practising law in the offices of English Solicitors for two years! I was still refused exemption after doing so for 3 years!    
• The Law Society official Mark Hone, on the advice of Lord Lester Q.C perjured himself by swearing a false affidavit for the purpose of misleading the court to believe that I had, compared to English Barristers exempted, provided less proof of knowledge of accounts! In fact, he knew that I had provided more proof than any English barrister ever exempted!
• When I won the case of indirect racial discrimination, that I had brought against the Law Society, for its refusal to exempt me, the Law Society declared, for the purpose of defeating the end of justice, that it had suspended the law that allowed exemption of English Barristers! Hence, that I would not be exempted! In the first place, the Law Society had no locus standi to [12] suspend the implementation of a national law! In the second place, although the industrial Tribunal and I were officially told that the law had been suspended the implementation of the law, yet, the White English Barristers actually continued to be exempted under it! The Law Society had lied!.

Although the law requires the rule of conflict of interest to be observed by the quasi judicial exemption committees of the Law Society, yet, for the purpose of defeating the end of justice, it was not observed in my case:

• (a) Mrs. Coles who was acting as a defence solicitor in a case that I brought against the Law Society, appointed herself the clerk to the committee considering my exemption!
• (b) She also appointed the adjudicators who were to act as judges in the matter!
• (c) She then used confidential documents that I submitted, for my exemption, as a ground to apply to the tribunal to make a ruling against me!
• (d) She deliberately, in spite of my demands for disclosure, concealed from me the policy which entitled me to automatic exemption, by virtue of [13] having worked in the firms of English Solicitors for 2 years!
• (e) For the purpose of ensuring that I failed the test for exemption, she devised a Catch-22 Test which I, and only I, was to pass! It was an antagonistic test calculated to inspire resentment! I was to ask my judges questions with the object of proving that they knew less law, than I did! And, they were to ask me questions, with the intention of proving that they knew more law, than I did!

* Although the law requires the adjudicators to act on the evidence presented to them, the evidence I presented was simply deliberately falsified! I submitted to the Law Society the Solicitors Rules of accounts which I practised in Uganda. They were word by word, identical to that in England except that the legal practitioner in Uganda was called, an advocate. In England he is called, a solicitor. As a result of the influence of Mrs. Coles, on her appointees, the Law Society ruled that the two sets of law were neither identical, nor similar!

* Although Professor Read had written a book showing that the rules that governed legal practice in my country, Uganda, was identical to that in England, and although a photocopy of that conclusion was sent to the [14] Law Society, yet, for the purpose of delaying my exemption, Professor Read was commissioned, at unnecessary public expenses, to carry out research to find out whether the two sets of law were indeed identical! When, after months of research, he submitted a report that the 2 sets of law were indeed identical, his finding was never acted upon! I was then told, in essence, that his report was never necessary! They stated that, as a matter of fact, the only thing which had delayed my exemption for years, was that the Law Society wanted a letter from an English solicitor certifying that I knew the rules governing solicitors accounts in England! On its production, I was then exempted!

* After some five years of its failure to exempt me, the Law Society finally exempted me in 1995. However, in order to refuse to admit me as a solicitor, it accused me of contempt of court! It stated that I had published, in a press conference, confidential documents, obtained by virtue of the order for discovery, made by the Industrial Tribunal. In order to defeat the end of justice, the Law Society did not bring committal proceedings, for contempt of court against me in the High Court, in accordance with:

1. Their own notice of intention to institute committal proceedings for contempt in the High Court! [15]
2. The advice given to them by the Industrial Tribunal!
3. And the law as well as the legal precedents! I had given them notice that if they brought the proceedings in the High Court I would rely on the provision of s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1986. The law entitles me to prove the criminal offences committed by the staff of the Law Society as a legal authority for publishing the confidential documents. There is no confidence in iniquity. In law, the fact that the staff of the Law Society feared to bring the case against me in the High Court, is an admission on their part, that they have committed the criminal offences with which I have charged them.

* Although the law specifically prohibited publication of confidential documents to any other body except the High Court, the Law Society in the person of its solicitor, Mrs. Coles published confidential documents to the Bar. She confessed, under oath, that she had done so unlawfully! Yet, because she was White, she was not to be punished. Because I was black, I was to be punished!

* For the purpose of avoiding discovery, the Law Society, in the person of its solicitor, Mrs. Coles, deliberately swore a false oath [16] about not knowing the names of solicitors who had been punished for contempt of court. She knew the name of Hon. Harriet Herman M.P and had formerly pleaded it!

* Again for the purpose of defeating the end of justice, although the Law Society had promised to consider my application for admission after the Bar had completed the investigation of their complaint against me, yet, after the Bar had completed its determination, the Law Society continued for years, to refuse to consider my application for admission! They also refused to answer all letters begging them to consider my application!

* Although as a legal practitioner, I owe a duty to act in the best interest of my client, and I do not owe a duty to the opponent of my client, yet, the Law Society gave me notice of its intention to refuse me admission as a solicitor, because, in the interest of my client, an Asian lady, Mrs. Da Cunha, I published on the internet, the way she was racially discriminated against, by Mr. Michael Lygo, the Chief Accountant of the Great Ormond Street Hospital! Mr. Lygo is one of the most corrupt accountants in the country. When he learnt that Mrs. Da Cunha was enquiring about his embezzlement of public funds, he decided to dismiss her from the Hospital. I was obliged to publish about [17] his embezzlement of sick children's fund.

* The Law Society even interfered with my application for legal aid to bring a case against them! The ground, which legal aid gave for refusing my application, namely that I had retired, was the ground that I had given, not to the Legal Aid Board, but to the Law Society! The Law Society ensured that I was denied the right to be represented by a White counsel, on the ground that if so represented, my voice might, at long last, be heard!

A SUMMARY OF PARTICULARS OF THE CHARGES OF CORRUPTION AGAINST THE FOLLOWING JUDGES:

CHIEF JUSTICE LORD THOMAS HENRY BINGHAM:

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham deliberately committed gross breaches of his judicial oath and deliberately perverted the course of Justice.

It all started with a letter of complaint, against the [18] Law Society, that I wrote to him, in his capacity then, as the Master of the Rolls. In his reply, Lord Bingham advised me that he could not assist me with the complaint because, in case I decided to appeal, against what I saw as a gross misconduct on the part of some officials of the Law Society, my appeal would be heard by him.

So, I prepared my appeal against the racially discriminatory decision of the Law Society, refusing to exempt me for admission as a solicitor.       

1. LEGAL AMBUSH:

Lord Bingham's reply was in the form of a direction to me and to the Law Society, to attend the hearing of my appeal! It was a legal ambush. It was contrary to the rule of natural justice, for the case heard before the defence was lodged:

• The Law Society knew the grounds of my case.

•  

  I did not know the grounds of their defence!

The threefold consequences of my attending the nearing without a defence being lodged were:

• The supremacy of the law was betrayed. The case was not heard in accordance with the procedure of the law. It was heard in accordance with the arbitrary decision of Lord [19]

• The parties were not equal, either before the law, or before the court! The Law Society had been supplied with my pleadings. I had been denied their pleading. In law, the Law Society had been favourably treated. I had been unfavourably treated!

• There was a conspiracy to defeat justice. Though I was denied the grounds of defence of the Law Society, Lord Bingham was given the defence of the Law Society! Had Lord Bingham not known the defence of the Law Society, he would have insisted that the pleadings be completed! But, knowing it, he felt that it was not necessary to complete the pleading! How did Lord Bingham come to know about the defence of the Law Society? The only answer is that, he asked for it, behind my back. And it was given to him, behind my back! And that is the issue. In law, he conspired to defeat the end of justice.

2.  PREJUDICE JUDGEMENT:

On learning what the defence of the Law Society was, the Chief Justice made two vital decisions behind my back! These were:

• (a) That he did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case!
• (b) That, in the circumstances, the Law Society need not send me its [20] defence!
• Mr. Justice Sir Thomas Richard Atkin Morrison.

In law, his pie-judged the case. His was a prejudiced judgement of the case, before it was heard in open court, was:

• A betrayal of the law!
• Mr. Double-crossing a litigant i.e. me!

3.  CONFESSION OF A CONSPIRACY:

At the hearing of the application, Lord Bingham confessed as follows:

• The Law Society told him about the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, that the guidelines of the Law Society, for exempting English barristers was indirectly racially discriminatory against me.

• It had told him that, as a result of that decision, the Law Society had decided not to enforce the law that empowered it to exempt English Barristers! It is to be noted that the Tribunal had found no fault with the law! Only with the unnecessary guidelines!

• Further, the Chief Justice said that as a result of the suspension of the implementation of the law, no English Barrister was going to be exempted.

[21]
Of course Lord Bingham knew that the Law Society had no legal authority to suspend enforcement of a national law! He also knew that the sole excuse let alleged suspension was to prevent me from being exempted' By endorsing the unlawful suspension, and by endorsing the false excuse for refusing me exemption, he became a party to:

• A conspiracy to defeat the end of justice.
• Racial discrimination.

4.  ACTING AS A PUPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY

To add insult to injury. Lord Bingham, asked me a question which the Law Society must have suggested to him! He said that since I was an English Barrister and wanted to become a solicitor

was I prepared to sit for the test to become a solicitor?

With a polite and generous dissimulation Lord Bingham affected not to know the object for the alleged refusal to implement the law. Clearly, he was no dupe of the Law Society. On the contrary. he had conspired to become a willing instrument of the Law Society'. He wilfully broke his judicial oath in order to ensure:
[22]

• (a) That the Law Society succeeds in its racist discrimination against me!
• (b) That the end of justice is defeated!
• (c) Mr. Justice Sir John Michael
• (d) And that the implication of the order of the Industrial Tribunal decision was disobeyed i.e. contempt of court. The implication of the order of the Tribunal was that since I had been refused exemption on the basis of racially discriminatory policy, I should be exempted forthwith!

5.  LIES:

One of the most distressing thing about Lord l3ingharn is that he sometime indulges in lies! Although he told Inc that the law for exemption had been suspended, he knew, all the time, that it was not suspended! White English Barristers had continued to be exempted. He could not have failed to know it. He was then the Master of the Rolls! He was wholly briefed about admissions!

MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL WRIGHT:

Mr. Justice Michael Wright who gave directions, for my trial for the concocted charges of [23] professional misconduct, of publishing to the press. the content of confidential documents, which prove the serious criminal offences. committed by Lord Lester and some Law Society officials, deliberately committed breaches of his judicial oath, and perverted the course of justice thus.

• NO MATERIAL WITNESSES: He refused my application for material witnesses to be called to give evidence of the crimes committed by Lord Lester and top Law Society officials!
• BETRAYAL OF ORDER 52: He refused my application for a change of venue, for a trial for contempt of court, from the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court, to the High Court, in accordance with the law laid down by Supreme Court Order 52, rule 1! The purpose of refusing the application was to defeat the end of justice, by denying me the opportunity to prove to the High Court, the serious offences committed by some Law Society Officials!Justice Lord Thomas Henry Bingham.
• BETRAYAL OF CONTEMPT ACT: His refusal of my application for a change of venue, was also contrary to the Contempt of Court Act 1981! Under the contempt law, none in this country can be punished for reporting to the press what took place in open court, except when the High Court has so ordered. I am the first person to be denied justice under that law! Michael Wright never denied a White man trial according to that law. However, because I am [24] black, he believed that he could successfully conspire to defeat justice under that law!
• BETRAYAL OF CRIMINAL ACT: Contrary to the provision of section 4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, he refused to allow me to plead, as my defence, my legal duty to report the crimes committed by the 4 Law Society officials! His malicious and unlawful purpose for denying me that defence, was to cover up the offences committed by those Law Society officials.
• REFUSAL OF DISCOVERY: He refused discovery in a case in which, without discovery, justice could neither be done, nor be seen as done!
• REFUSAL OF REASONABLE TIME: He refused to give reasonable time for the trial. He reduced the time for the trial from 2 months to 2 days! His sole object was to prevent the crimes committed by top lawyers and some judges from being heard!
• FALSIFICATION OF RECORD: He falsified the record of his direction hearing, by leaving out my applications and submissions concerning the crimes committed by the 4 Law Society officials and some judges! He deliberately tried to defeat the end of justice by covering up the fact that the 4 officials were charged before him, in his capacity as a judge, of very serious criminal offences.[25]

MR. JUSTICE SIR FRANCIS HUMPHREY POTTS

Mr Justice Potts, appointed to hear my appeal, against the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Inns of Court, deliberately committed breaches of his judicial oath and perverted the course of justice thus:

• DENIAL OF HEARING: Contrary to the provision of the law, he deliberately denied me the right for oral hearing of my appeal.
• OBTAINING CONSENT BY LIES: He pretended, that the purpose of this denial was to enable the case to be determined as soon as possible, in accordance with my request. However, when the parties agreed to his offer, for the appeal to be determined on the basis of written submissions, he took more than a year to determine the appeal! As the appeal involved issues of fundamental right, the law made its expeditious determination a mandatory requirement.
• DENIAL OF HEARING JUDGEMENT: He maliciously avoided to give his judgement in an open court where the parties could attend! He [26] decided to give the judgement in Leeds and requested the parties not to attend! Knowing that his judgement was a deliberate exercise to defeat justice, he opted not to face the victim of his bias judgement. Nor did he want the press to get wind of it!
• IGNORING RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE: He wilfully ignored the ground of appeal that the orders of Mr. Justice Wright, that names of material witnesses and copies of material documentary evidence, be not given to me, was contrary to the rule of natural justice.
• ISSUE OF FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS: He deliberately failed to deal with the ground of appeal that failure of the Disciplinary Tribunal, to give reasons for rejecting my grounds of defence, was an error of law.
• BETRAYAL OF ORDER 52: He deliberately failed to deal with the ground of appeal that by virtue of s. 1(2) of the Tribunal and Enquiry (Evidence) Act 1922, and of Order 52 Rule I of the Supreme Court, no person in this country can be punished for a breach of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, unless the High Court had made that finding!
• BETRAYAL OF CRIMINAL LAW ACT: He maliciously failed to deal with the ground of appeal that by virtue s. 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, the content of confidential documents which discloses a criminal offence, [27] are not protected from being published, for the purpose of criminal investigations.
• BETRAYAL OF CONFIDENTIALITY LAW: He intentionally ignored to deal with the ground of appeal that under the law of this country, there is no confidentiality in iniquity. Hence that attempt to punish me for publishing confidential documents disclosing the iniquities of the Gang of Four, was itself a conspiracy to defeat justice.
• BETRAYAL OF CONTEMPT LAW: He deliberately ignored to deal with the ground of appeal that by virtue the Contempt of Court Act 1981 no person, in this country, can be punished for publishing evidence, of a case heard in open court.
• BETRAYAL OF RACE LAW: In order to defeat the end of justice, he maliciously failed to deal with the ground of appeal that by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1967, the punishment of a Black lawyer, namely, myself, for disclosure of a confidential documents, which was also disclosed by a White lawyer, namely, Mrs. Anne Coles, who was not punished for it, was racially discriminatory.
• FURTHER BETRAYAL OF RACE LAW: He maliciously ignored to deal with the ground of appeal that by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976, the initiation, by the Bar, of a complaint against me, by a letter, while refusing to initiate [28] a complaint against Lord Lester Q.C by a letter, was racially discriminatory.
• COVERING UP THE UNLAWFUL ACT OF TRIBUNAL: He wilfully ignored to deal with the ground of appeal that the proceedings against me, in the Inns of Court Tribunal, was null and void in law! This is because the law totally prohibited the publication to the Disciplinary Tribunal of Inns of Court, the confidential documents whose content constituted the cause of action!
• VIOLATING THE RULE OF NATURE: Lastly, he maliciously refused my application, without giving me the opportunity to be heard, to recommend to the Law Society, in accordance with the Race Relations Act, and with the accepted practice, to consider urgently, my application for admission as a solicitor.

MR. JUSTICE SIR THIMBLES RICHARD ATKIN MORRISON

Mr Justice, Sir Thomas Richard Atkin Morrison, heard my appeal against the decision of the most corrupt judge, namely, Industrial Tribunal Chairman, Mr. David Booth. In order to cover up the criminal conduct of Chairman Booth, Mr. Justice Morrison maliciously committed breaches of [29] his judicial oath and perverted the course of justice.

• BASED DECISION ON EXTRANEOUS ISSUES: In order to dismiss my appeal against the decision of Chairman David Booth, Mr. Justice Morrison maliciously made extraneous issues of contempt of court and of marks, his grounds for deciding the case! He knew that these issues had already been decided in other courts! Further, he himself had ruled, in a preliminary hearing, that those issues were irrelevant!
• DENYING LEGAL RIGHT FOR CASE TO BE HEARD ON ITS MERIT: He maliciously avoided to deal with the most crucial ground of appeal, namely that Chairman David Booth of the Industrial Tribunal was wrong in law, in refusing me my mandatory legal right to have my case, of racial discrimination, heard on its merit!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO JURISDICTION ISSUE: He also wilfully avoided to deal with the grounds of appeal on the issue of jurisdiction i.e. whether a Chairman against whose decision an appeal has been made, can reopen the case and order costs against the appellant! The more so as my grounds of appeal was that Booth was the most corrupt judge in the country!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE: In order to defeat the end of [30] justice, Mr. Justice Morrison maliciously omitted to deal with the ground of appeal, concerning the secret letter from Mr. Robin Lewis, that Blackmailer of Judges, who, for that reason, is the Solicitor (FOR?) the Law Society. I had submitted that the letter of blackmail, from the Law Society to Booth, rendered the proceedings before Booth a nullity! Amongst other things, the secret letter, according to Lewis, asked Booth to reopen the case that was already on appeal, and to make an order for costs! And Booth did so!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO ILLEGAL AWARD OF COSTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY: Again Morrison deliberately avoided to deal with the legal requirement that whatever costs awarded in a preliminary hearing, was not payable, unless until the case is heard on its merit! In law, only the trial court directs payment of such costs!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO THE ILLEGAL QUANTUM OF COSTS AWARDED: Nor did Morrison deal with the issue that the order for costs, exceeding £8000, was unlawful, since the maximum costs the law allows, in a preliminary hearing, is only £150.
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY: He deliberately avoided to deal with the ground of appeal concerning the legal requirement to order discovery in cases involving racial discrimination! Nor did he deal with the issue of refusing my application for discovery without giving me an opportunity to [31] be heard on the matter. Nor did he deal with the discriminatory orders for discovery which, on the one hand, denied me discovery, on the other hand, gave discovery to the Law Society!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO ROBIN LEWIS BLACKMAIL: In order to dismiss my appeal, he deliberately avoided to deal with the failure of the Industrial Tribunal, to deal with my application, as to whether it was lawful or not, for solicitor Robin Lewis to represent the Law Society. Booth had been part and parcel of the officials of the Law Society accused of perjury and fraud, etc. in the case!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO PREJUDICED JUDGEMENT: He also wilfully avoided to deal with the issue as to whether the conduct of Chairman Booth, in challenging the propriety of my Counsel to represent me, on the evidence secretly given to him from outside the court, amounted, in law, to judicial bias and rendered the proceedings a nullity!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS ON THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL RACISM: He also deliberately avoided to deal with the issue of my racial discrimination by the Tribunal Chairman Booth who had, on racial grounds, treated me less favourably than the White Law Society officials! Booth had invariably ignored my applications and invariably answered the applications by the Law Society! [32]
• WILFUL BLINDNESS ON THE ISSUE OF JUDICIAL BIAS: He also deliberately ignored the ground of bias raised. Chairman Booth was, again and again asked not to preside over the hearing on the ground of bias! Again and again he refused to do so. He promised to write down, in his judgement, the ground for his decision, but he did not do so! Instead, he deliberately falsified his judgement, by omitting to point out that applications were made for him, not to act as a judge in the case.
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO THE ISSUE OF MISPRISION OF FELONY: He deliberately ignored to deal with the ground of appeal that the Tribunal was wrong in refusing to deal with the legal defence of misprision of felony i.e. s.4 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Had he dealt with that legal point, he would have allowed the appeal! He avoided to deal with it, for the sole purpose of defeating the end of justice.
• MALICIOUS IGNORING OF HIS OWN RULING: In order to defeat the end of justice, Mr. Morrison maliciously ignored his own ruling, and the reason he gave for that ruling, namely that the Tribunal had mistaken the issue in the case!
• BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BY UNDUE DELAY: He deliberately delayed for over a year to give, a short judgement, in a case involving human rights! [33]
• REFUSAL TO DELIVER JUDGEMENT IN MY PRESENCE: Being conscious of his conspiracy to defeat the end of justice, he purposely refused to deliver his judgement in open court! He even avoided to send the judgement to me. I had to ask for it!
• WILFUL BLINDNESS TO JUDGEMENT BY HIM: Above all, he deliberately ignored ground of appeal that the trial judge had refused to read my written evidence submitted to him in the form of affidavit! Further, he refused to give copies of the affidavit to the assessors! Thereafter, he proceeded to award costs against me without knowing the evidence I submitted against award of costs! Even the most corrupt judge Kangaroo Court, would not have ignored such evidence. The fact that Morrison ignored it, speaks for itself!

MR.JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

In order to prevent me from receiving legal aid, that would enable me to be represented by a White Barrister, whose words would be listened to by the court, Mr. Justice Maurice Kay maliciously committed breaches of his judicial oath, and perverted the course of justice in the following ways:

• CONTEMPT OF COURT: His decision to refuse [34] leave on the ground that I could represent myself amounted to contempt of the courts, which had heard the case on its merit. Both, His Honour Judge Altoona and the Legal Aid Board itself, had formerly held that, in spite of my qualification and experience as a barrister, yet, the nature of my complaint called for my being legally represented.
• MALICE AND JUDICIAL BIAS: It was proved to Mr. Justice Kay, on the basis of documentary evidence, that the decisions of the Legal Aid Board, in my application, had become a Catherine Wheel: too fickle to be tolerated in a public office! Every decision gave reasons for refusing legal aid. Those reasons were then subsequently admitted to be wrong! Thereafter, instead of giving legal aid by virtue of the admitted error of law, the Legal Aid Board would, look for yet another reason, for refusing legal aid! Such a conduct raised a point of great public interest which call for determination. Further, it called for a precedent that would guide the courts in such cases! Such conduct appear to be evidence of official bias and abuse of power of office! It thus constituted a mandatory legal duty for the judge to give leave for judicial review. The fact that Mr Justice Kay refused leave is proof that he deliberately broke his judicial oath and conspired to defeat the end of justice.
• CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE: The unchallenged proof that the Legal Aid Board [35] had unlawfully gone behind me, to ask the Law Society to furnish them with the reason for refusing me legal aid, was also a mandatory ground for giving leave for judicial review. The fact that Mr. Justice Kay refused leave, in the face of such a compelling ground of bias, is proof of his conspiracy to defeat justice. It was proved to his satisfaction that I had not told the Legal Aid Board about my retirement from legal practice. I had told the Law Society. It was the Law Society that gave that ground to the Legal Aid Board, to use it, to refuse me legal aid!
• FRAUDULENT DECISION: Lastly, I proved Mr. Justice Kay, by documentary evidence, that the final decision, given by the Legal Aid Board for refusing me Legal Aid, was manifestly fraudulent. Now, in law, fraud vitiates everything. It thus made it mandatory for Mr. Justice Kay to order judicial review of the case. But, he did not. His failure to do so was both, a breach of his oath of office, and a deliberate act, on his part, to defeat the end of justice! The reason given by the Legal Aid Board was that "there was no reasonable prospects for success in the proceedings, notwithstanding Counsel's advice of 5/10/98" and that: "It was not shown that the decision complained of was irrational, illegal, or procedurally improper". Yet, my application for legal aid had explained, at great length, that the decision by the Law Society was:
  (a) irrational,
  (b) illegal,
  (c) procedurally [36] improper and that it was
  (d) a refusal to carry out a public function,
  (e) a breach of official undertaking and was also
  (f )  contrary to Regulation 6 of the Admission Regulation, and
  (g) to Race Relations Act 1976, etc.!

HIS HONOUR JUDGE IRVINE MITCHELL

The Gang of Four of the Law Society were afraid that if the complaint that they made against me, for publishing to the press, the content of confidential documents, that prove their criminal offences. was heard in the High Court, my defence that I had a legal duty to publish evidence of criminal offences, would be upheld. So. they looked around for bias judges. who would despicably commit breaches of their oath of office, and deliberately defeat the end of justice by making a finding that I had unlawfully published confidential documents, that disclose criminal offences!. They found those judges. They were anonymous judges of the Bar, whose livelihood depended exclusively on instructions from solicitors. And who thus dared not disappoint the Law Society! So overweighed with their guilt of defeating the end of justice, that they even dared not disclose their names! The other, equally pliant judge, was Honour (!) Judge [37] Fergus Irvine Mitchell:

• VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF UNIFORMITY OR EQUALITY: The law is that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. Solicitor Anne Coles, of the Law Society, who complained against me to the Bar, confessed to Judge Mitchell, that she had not come with clean hands! Her complaint was that, I had published to unauthorised persons, at a press conference, documents whose publication was prohibited by the Industrial Tribunal. She confessed that she too, had published the same documents to unauthorised persons! Yet, she was not punished! I was punished!
• VIOLATION OF THE RACE RELATIONS ACT: Anne Coles was not punished because she is White. I was punished because I am Black! Judge Mitchell thus turned himself into a racist! He defeated the end of justice by turning his court, into a racist organisation!
• VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS: The law, as stated in the Contempt of Court Act 1981, is that no person in this country should be punished for the exercise of his freedom of speech, in reporting proceedings which have taken place in open court. The only exception is when the High Court has found the person to be liable for contempt. As Judge Fergus Irvine Mitchell, [38] is not a judge of the High Court, and as, the Inns of Court Tribunal, is not the High Court, it followed that Judge Mitchell had no jurisdiction to punish me, for the exercise of my human rights of free speech! In punishing me, he became, in law, a tyrant. He differed from dictators Hitler and Amin only in degree; not in kind. He also turned the court into a violator of human rights.
• CONTEMPT OF COURT: Further, his Honour Judge Fergus Irvine Mitchell knew that by virtue of the provision of Order 52 rule 1 of the Supreme Court, his acceptance to act as a judge in the complaint against me, would constitute, on his part, the offence of contempt of court! The case was based on confidential documents, which could not legally be disclosed to him! It could only be lawfully disclosed to the High Court, which had the jurisdiction. By insisting on reading the documents unlawfully, he became a contemptnor! He is thus not a fit and proper person to be a judge in any court.
• LACK OF JURISDICTION: He also knew that by virtue of Order 52 rule 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, he did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore, he knew that by virtue of the said provision of the law, a person cannot be punished, in England, for contempt of court, unless and until the High Court had ruled that he had been guilty of contempt. He thus knew that his purported trial was null and void in law.[39]
• COVER UP OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES: He knew that the sole object for avoidance of the trial of the case in the High Court, in accordance with the provision of the law, as well as with the firm undertaking, by the Law Society, was to prevent the crimes of perjury, fraud, and defeating the course of justice etc, committed by the Law Society officials, from being disclosed in the High Court and proved! The first object was to turn the tribunal into a harbour of criminals.
• AN ACCOMPLICE AFTER THE FACT OF A FELONY: The second object was to turn Judge Mitchell into an accomplice after the fact of the felonies, committed by the Law Society officials. His colleague, His Honour Judge Gelega King, who had been equally assigned that task, had refused to be a party to such a criminal endeavour!
• A FRAUD: Judge Mitchell acted throughout the case as a fraud. He knew, all along, that the sole case against me was that I had committed a breach of the order of the Industrial Tribunal, by publishing confidential documents in a press conference. He thus knew that in law the offence that I was charged of was, by definition, contempt of court. Yet, he pretended, for the purpose of giving himself jurisdiction, that the charge against me was not contempt! He was, in law, a fraud. It is against public interest to have a fraud as a [40] judge.
• FRAUDULENT CONDUCT: Again, his conduct throughout the case was fraudulent. He claims, for instance, that the case that I brought against him in the High Court, did not make him in law, bias! Yet he knew that it made him, in law, bias! He also knew that in law, it disqualified him from judging the case!
• BIAS JUDGE: His bias further exhibited itself by his refusal to allow me to go through my defences, in open court! He claimed that the Panel had already read them! Reading grounds of defence, and hearing them explained and argued in open court, are two different things! Nor does the court mean the panel of judges only! It necessarily includes the audience who should leave the court satisfied that the ca was properly tried!
• FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS: His other form of bias was failure to give reasons on valid grounds of defence. He knew that if he gave reasons on my grounds of defence, as the law stipulates, I would have won the case. Hence, he did not even deal with my core defence in the case, namely, that I am entitled by virtue of the provision of s. 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1968 to publish confidential documents which disclose criminal offences. Nor would he give reasons why he did not accept the legal ground of defence, that there is no [41] confidentiality in iniquity!

CHAIRMAN E R DONNELLY

Chairman Donnelly of the Industrial Tribunal who heard my application against the Law Society for racial discrimination, deliberately committed breaches of her judicial oath and maliciously defeated the end of justice, by amongst others, the following conduct:

• UNLAWFUL INSTRUCTION OF COUNSEL: Donnelly unlawfully ordered Counsel Mitchel Aslangul to represent me against my will, and against the will of Counsel! The sole purpose of her unlawful conduct was to enable justice to be seen as being done, when in fact it was being defeated!
• UNLAWFUL REQUEST FOR A BRIBE: She unlawfully asked for a bribe. And the Lord Lester gave it to her! The effect of her corruption became apparent in her judgement!
• UNLAWFUL ACCEPTANCE OF A BRIBE: Unlawfully allowed Lord Lester Q.C to make an application, for the purpose of legal ambush, without the necessary legal notice.
• ILLEGAL OMISSION OF AN ORDER GIVEN IN [42] OPEN COURT: Although she had, in the open court dismissed the application made by Lord Lester Q.C yet, in the judgement that she wrote after she had received a letter of blackmail, from the Law Society. Blackmailer Robin Lewis, she maliciously omitted to record that the application by Lord Lester was dismissed!
• DISCRIMINATORY AWARD OF COSTS: Although in the open court, she dismissed, without costs, Lord Lester's application which had resulted into 2 days of hearing, she ordered me to pay costs for having pleaded late, the issue of costs! In fact, I had pleaded the issue of cost in my original statement of claim!
• ILLEGAL CONCEALMENT OF THE TRUTH: In order to prevent the evidence that prove the intention of the Law Society to discriminate against me, from being proved, she ruled that the director of the Law Society had answered the question about the date on which the racially discriminatory guidelines was published! The Director had evaded to answer the question and Donnelly knew it! The proof of that point would have entitled me to damages for direct racial discrimination! But Donnelly did not want that!
• ILLEGAL REVERSAL OF AN ORDER GIVEN IN OPEN COURT: In response to the appeal by Lord Lester that the Chairman write a [43] judgement in such a way that the issues determined by the tribunal would appear to be res judicata, whereas they were not res judicata. Chairman Donnelly unlawfully agreed to do so! And did so! As a result of her breach of judicial oath and of her defeating the end of justice, the High Court later held that the issue of intentional discrimination, had become res judicata.
• CONCEALING & CONCEDING TO BLACKMAIL: Subsequently, Chairman Donnelly received from Solicitor Robin Lewis, the Law Society Blackmailer, a letter blackmailing her and giving her secret briefing! She conceded to the Law Society's blackmail! Hers became a judgement by secret briefing. And by blackmail!
• ACTING AS A JUDGE IN HER OWN CAUSE: Thereafter, she wrote a review of her own judgement which was a defence of her unlawful conduct. She had abdicated her duty as a judge. She became a judge in her own case!
• SENDING SECRET BRIEFING: Even after that, to save herself from the consequences of her breaches of judicial oath, and of defeating the end of justice, she wrote a secret briefing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal! According to the Judgement of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the content of her secret briefing, was accepted in its entirety. None dreamt that it should have [44] been shown to me! None dreamt that I ought to have been given an opportunity to comment on it. It became the ground for refusing leave to appeal against her judgement! Up to now, her secret briefing which is the base of a court judgement, remains top secret! As the saying goes, she scratched some body's back. And in turn, some body has scratched her back. Hers became a judgement that has succeeded by back scratching!

CHAIRMAN DAVID BOOTH

Chairman David Booth of the Industrial Tribunal is, in my view, the most corrupt judge in the world' lie has shamelessly and openly committed breaches of his judicial oath! He has arrogantly defeated the end of justice, by amongst others, the following conduct:

• DENYING THE PARTIES A RIGHT TO BE HEARD: On 23/19/1997, contrary to the rule of natural justice, without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on my application for an order for discovery of documents, he ordered that the evidence required to prove racial discrimination be not disclosed!
• UNLAWFUL DENIAL OF DISCOVERY: Contrary to the requirement of s. 1(1)(a) and s. 12 of the [45] Race Relations Act 1976 which make it mandatory for a Respondent to produce evidence that compares the way in which it has treated persons of one racial group, with that in which it has treated persons of another group, he refused to order discovery!
• RACIAL DISCRIMINATION: Refusal of necessary discovery of documents that prove racial discrimination, is itself, racial discrimination by the judge.
• DISCRIMINATORY ORDERS: Booth resorted to discriminatory orders: whereas he refused my application for discovery without a hearing, he ordered discovery in favour of the Law Society, without a hearing! To make matters worse, he threatened to order me to pay cost of some £1000, if I did not obey the order for discovery made in my absence!
• BIAS IN ORDERING APPLICATION TO STRIKE A CASE: Booth displayed his bias when he ordered the Law Society to apply to strike out my statement of claim before the pleadings were completed! Both parties had just applied for the pleadings to be amended, so as to provide further and better particulars!
• BIAS BY REFUSING TO DEAL WITH A FORMAL APPLICATION: Booth further displayed his judicial bias by simply refusing to deal with my formal application, to the effect that justice would not be done, or seen to be done, if he [46] allowed Solicitor Robin Lewis, to represent the Law Society in that case. Solicitor had indulged himself in writing a letter of blackmail in perjury and fraud etc!
• PREJUDICED JUDGEMENT AND BIAS IN DENYING ME REPRESENTATION: Furthermore, he displayed his judicial bias by objecting to my being represented by Counsel Emmanuel Oteng, on the basis of some secret briefing, not made before the court!
• UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO RE-INSTATE COUNSEL: He again proved his incompetence and malice, as a judge, when he sought to re-instate Counsel Oteng as my counsel! To prevent me from attacking his bias, which had caused my Counsel to withdraw from representing me, Chairman Booth asked my Counsel to resume representing me!
• BIAS ORDER TO PRESIDE OVER THE HEARING OF THE CASE: Although he had made a definite ruling that the Chairman who heard the application to strike out my statement of claim, would not be the one to hear my case on its merit, and although the law itself specifically stated that such a Chairman, should not preside over the trial of the case on its merit, yet, for fear that another judge would determine the case fairly, on its merit, Chairman Booth ruled that, after determining the preliminary point of law, he will again be the one to hear the case on its merit! [47]
• BIAS AND ILLEGAL ORDER DENYING ME THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON ITS OWN MERIT. When I objected to Booth hearing the case contrary to the provision of the law, and to his own ruling, Booth decided that he would not allow the case to be heard on its merit! He made his decision on the preliminary point of law, final! He denied my legal right to have my case heard on its merit! He even went to the extent of hiding the case file! He disregarded the mandatory provision of the law that a party may decide, as of right, to have his case heard on its merit!
• JUDICIAL RACISM: Throughout the case, Booth acted discriminatorily. He hardly gave any answers to my written applications. He gave replies to the written applications by the Law Society!
• FRAUDULENT OMISSION TO RECORD APPLICATIONS ABOUT HIS BIAS! Although I had made a formal application demanding that Booth should withdraw from presiding over the hearing of the case, on the ground of judicial bias, and although I had demanded that he should reduce in writing his reasons for refusing to withdraw from being a judge in the case, and although he promised to do so, yet, he did not do it! He deliberately omitted to refer to my application in a fraudulent attempt to falsify the record! He did not want the record to reflect that applications were made for him to withdraw from hearing the case on ground of his bias! [48]
• JUDICIAL BIAS BY ACTING AS THE PUPPET OF THE LAW SOCIETY: Whereas, on the one hand, he treated me unfavourably, because of his judicial bias, on the other hand, he acted as a puppet of the Law Society! For instance, he denied me, again and again, my entitlement to have the hearing of the case adjourned, to enable me look up the point of law raised. The sole ground for refusing the adjournment was that the Law Society had asked for the case to be determined on that day! I was simply unable to proceed with the case as Booth had ruled that I should raise the point of law on which my defence for publishing confidential documents depended! I had to look up that point of law. And said so. He ultimately found it wise, in the best interest of the Law Society, to reverse his decision refusing to give me adjournment. I took advantage of adjournment to submit my defence of misprision of felony i.e. the legal requirement under the provision of s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1968. It was the duty under that law which forced me to disclose the confidential documents that proved the offences committed by the Law Society officials.
• BIAS BY IGNORING TO DEAL WITH MY GORE DEFENCE: As was to be expected, Booth deliberately ignored the legal authority of misprision of felony. To take account of it, would have led to a decision in my favour! Secondly, it would have necessitated my calling evidence proving the offences committed by [49] Lord Lester and the Law Society officials. Booth was committed to cover up proof of such offences!
• CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT JUSTICE: After I had launched the appeal against his decision, Booth received a secret letter constituting a conspiracy to defeat the end of justice! It was a conspiracy for Booth to order me to pay costs to the Law Society. He unlawfully acted on it. This proof of a conspiracy to defeat justice, rendered the proceedings a nullity.
• BIAS BY REFUSING TO ADMIT AND TO JUDGE BY EVIDENCE: When he ordered me to attend a hearing for costs, without telling me that he had had a secret letter from the Law Society to force me, contrary to the provision of the law, to pay costs for a preliminary hearing, without any hearing on merit, I prepared an affidavit challenging the legality and jurisdiction of Booth to make the order! Booth told my Counsel that he will not read my affidavit! And that he will not give copies of my affidavit to assessors! No Kangaroo Court in the whole world could defeat justice in such an outrageous manner! His bias rendered the proceeding a nullity.
• TREACHERY TO THE LAW: Thereafter Booth defied the law which provides thus: (a) The maximum costs awarded by the Industrial Tribunal in a preliminary hearing should not exceed £150. (b) And that the amount awarded should not be payable unless and until the case [50] is heard on its merit, and dismissed on the ground that it showed no cause of action. (c) Booth gave an order meant to result and resulted into costs of over £8000 to be paid without the case being heard on its merit!

THE OSS

OFFICE FOR THE SUPERVISION OF SOLICITORS

The Solicitors Complaints Bureau, the predecessor of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, was notorious as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Its successor, the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is worse. It is the only Court in the whole world which has devised a formula for defeating the end of justice. The formula is: 'OSS, "does not consider that there was anything in the ground ... to persuade them to alter the decision reached"!'

As was to be expected, the Law Society was sure to cause me to be reported to such a bogus judge! I was reported to the 0SS for having written an article on the Internet! The article exposed the [51] thefts and embezzlement of public funds by one of the most corrupt accountants in the country, Mr. Michael Lygo, Chief Accountant of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children! Lygo is an expert at using public money to bribe officials. None who reads the judgement of the 0SS can fail to suspect that public money was used to bribe some very influential official! There can be no other rational explanation for the conduct of the OSS! I gave 16 reasons which prove conclusively that there was no cause of complaint against me. In a country where the legal system is run by law abiding officials, I would have been given a commendation for exposing corruption. In a country where the legal system is based on corruption, it was to be expected that my efforts would be rewarded with a maximum punishment. And it was! I was ordered never to work in the offices of solicitors! My 16-point defence were:

• FALSE POINT OF FACT: The complaint was that much of the information that I reported on the Internet came into my possession by virtue of being employed in an office of a solicitor. I pointed out that as a matter of fact, I was briefed, in my personal capacity, to bring a case in the Industrial Tribunal. I did not therefore obtain access to the information by virtue of employment in the office of a solicitor. On the contrary, I was the one who referred the case to a firm of solicitors. The OSS did not [52] challenge the point! Yet, it concluded that it was not a ground for altering its decision. Its conclusion was an admission, on its pad, that the ground for the complaint against me was false! And that the OSS knew that it was false! It only used it for the purpose of defeating the end of justice!
• FALSE POINT OF LAW: The complaint was made against me under the provision of law applicable to persons employed by solicitors as clerks. The OSS admitted that I was never employed as a clerk, but as a consultant. Yet, it concluded that the fact that I was charged under a wrong law, could not make it change its decision! It was an admission that the legal ground on which I was charged was false. And that the OSS knew that it was false! It only used it for the purpose of defeating the end of justice!
• BREACH OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: The complaint sought to have me punished, for the exercise of my fundamental right to publish an article which "made allegations of theft and false accounting against Mr. Lygo". It was therefore contrary to the provision of Article 10 of Schedule 1 of Human Rights Act 1998. The OSS does not deny that I do have a freedom of expression. Nor does it deny that the complaint would breach my fundamental freedom of expression. Yet it concluded that the ground is not sufficient to enable it alter its decision! It was an admission that the powers of the OSS had been usurped by criminal [53] elements! They are prepared to defeat the end of justice by unlawfully committing a breach of my fundamental freedom of expression.
• HARBOURING CRIMINALS: The complaint sought to have me punished for reporting the offences committed by Michael Lygo. It was therefore contrary to the provision of s.4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which imposes upon all persons, the duty to report arrestable offences committed. The OSS does not deny that legal duty. Yet its claims that it makes no difference to its decision! Its conclusion is thus an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by criminal elements. They are defeating the end of justice, by harbouring criminals like Lygo. And are defeating the end of justice by punishing those of us who obey the law, by reporting criminals!
• PUNISHMENT BY MALICE: The complaint of Lygo discloses only one cause of action, namely, defamation. OSS has no jurisdiction in defamation cases. The OSS does not deny that ground of defence. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by illegal elements. They are prepared to punish the innocent because of malice.
• PUNISHMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTION: Article 6 of Schedule 1 of Human Rights Act 1998 provides that in the determination of civil rights, in this case, my right to freedom of [54] expression, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing. The complaint calls for a court which would be able to determine whether Lygo has committed the offences I complained of or not. The OSS does not have that jurisdiction . The OSS has not challenged the validity of that defence. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! Its conclusion was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by illegal elements. They do not respect the fundamental human rights of others!
• CIRCUMNAVIGATING THE LAW: The sole reason, given by Lygo, for his complaint to the OSS, is that he was circumnavigating the law, because he cannot afford the cost of a libel suit in the High Court! In spite of that admission, the OSS still held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by unlawful elements who help people like Lygo to circumnavigate, the law!
• NO RELIEF: It is clear from the complaint of Lygo that the OSS cannot provide him with the relief that he sought: The relief of a public exoneration from the accusations of theft. Only a libel action in the High Court can clear his name. Yet, the OSS held that its inability to provide the relief sought is no ground for its altering its decision! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by unlawful elements who act on improper motive. Their object is not to give Lygo relief but to [55] muzzle me from publishing criminal offences of persons like Lygo and the Law Society officials!
• ANTI-TRUTH: The employer of Mr. Lygo, the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, has admitted that I had good grounds to complain against the conduct of Mr. Lygo! The OSS does not deny that! In short its conclusion is an admission that its power has been usurped by illegal elements who are anti-Truth. They want to muzzle me from telling the truth!
• NO DUTY: Even if the information that I used to make the accusations, were obtained from "a client of Attanayake & Co", as the OSS claims, Lygo would still have no cause of complaint! This is because under Principle 16.01 of the Guide to Professional Conduct of Solicitors, I owed the duty of confidentiality to the Client of Attanayake & Co. I never owed a duty to the opponents of my clients. I thus owed no duty at all to Lygo. He therefore had no locus standi to complain against me, as he has done, for a breach of confidentiality! Yet, the OSS held that, absence of duty made no difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by unlawful elements who act on improper motive. They are prepared to punish, where there is no legal ground for punishment.
• CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT: What was published was heard in open court. The complaint thus amounts to a contempt of court. By virtue of the provision of Contempt of Court [56] Act 1981 OSS has no jurisdiction in the matter. Only the High Court has. OSS does not deny this point. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the ground for its finding was unlawful and that the OSS knew that it was unlawful! It only used it for the purpose of defeating the end of justice!
• NO CONFIDENCE: The law states that there is no confidence in disclosure of iniquity as the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in confidence. The OSS admits the law. Yet, it held that the law should not have been obeyed in this case as the protection of Lygo's theft outweighs the public interest of disclosure Lygos crimes!
• PROFESSIONAL WITHOUT INTEGRITY: In any case, the publication, of the accusation of theft and false accounting was in compliance with Rule 1(a) of Solicitors Practising Rules 1990 which obliges solicitors and their staff to uphold "the solicitor's independence and integrity". My integrity dictated that I continue to demand that the flawed investigations into the offences of embezzlement of public funds by Lygo, should be re-opened so that it receives material evidence that was never put to it. The OSS does not dispute that point of law. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by unlawful elements. They want solicitors to behave as themselves: men without integrity! [57]
• BETRAYAL OF INTEREST OF CLIENT: Publication of the accusations of theft and false accounting was also in compliance with Rule of Solicitors Practising Rules 1990 which obliges solicitors and their staff to "act in the best interest of client". The best interest of the client was to have the truth of the allegations investigated. The OSS does not dispute that point. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the power of the OSS has been usurped by illegal elements. They do not want solicitors to act in the best interest of their clients but to betray the best interests of the clients!
• BAD REPUTE: Publication of the accusations of theft and false accounting was also in compliance with Rule 1(d) of Solicitors Practising Rule 1990 which obliges solicitors and their staff to act in a way that promotes "the good repute of the solicitors' profession". The good repute of the solicitors' profession dictates that solicitors and their staff should not be accomplices after the fact of a felony. It demands, on the contrary, that they must report the offences committed and the evidence which prove it. And I did just that. The OSS does not deny the validity of that defence. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the OSS is committed to solicitors to have bad repute for harbouring criminals! [58]
• DESTRUCTION OF FREEDOM: In the light of what is stated above, the recommendation that I be punished for having exercised my freedom of expression, by publishing evidence that prove that serious crimes committed by Lygo, is contrary to the provision of Article 17 of Schedule 1 of Human Rights Act 1998. It is a decision that destroys my freedom of expression. OSS does not deny the validity of the ground of defence. Yet, it held that it did not make any difference to its finding against me! It was an admission that the OSS is committed to the destruction of the freedom of others

Back to WHO's DR. ADOKO homepage