Human Rights lawyer, Francis Xavier-Sosu, has appealed against the three-year ban handed him by the General Legal Council, arguing the Council (GLC) lacked jurisdiction to have convicted him of criminal offence.
The renowned lawyer who is seeking to set aside the entire decision of the GLC at the Court of Appeal described the sentence imposed on him as “harsh and excessive”.
READ: Lawyer Francis-Xavier Sosu gets 3yr ban for advertising himself
The GLC convicted Mr Xavier-Sosu on his own plea for advertising and touting himself contrary to Rule 2(4) of the legal profession (professional conduct and etiquette) Rules, 1969 L.I. 613
But in a notice of appeal filed Wednesday, Xavier-Sosu argued there is no law that specifically makes overestimation of legal fees “grave misconduct in a professional respect”.
He argued among others as follows:
That the prohibition on advertising, touting and/or publicity as provided for under Rule 2(1) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 1969 (L.I 613), is vague and/or overbroad and inconsistent with Articles 19(1 I) of the 1992 Constitution.
That the charge of touting and personal advertising levelled against the Appellant is discriminatory contrary to Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution.
That in convicting the Appellant of touting and personal advertisement the General Legal Council erred in law since there was no identifiable complainant as required by the provisions of the Legal Profession Act 1960 (Act 32).
That the General Legal Council erred in law by failing or neglecting to serve any formal complaint of touting and personal advertisement on the Appellant, thereby failing to act fairly and comply with the requirements of the law as required by Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution.
That in inquiring into and convicting the Appellant of touting and personal advertisement the General Legal Council erred in law by constituting itself into complainant, prosecutor and judge in a matter before it, thereby violating the rules of natural justice and the Right to Fair Trial of the Appellant as guaranteed by Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution.
That the General Legal Council erred in law in charging and convicting the Appellant of “gave misconduct in a professional respect” in that there is no law specifically making touting and personal advertisement “gave misconduct in a professional respect”.
That the sentence of three (3) years suspension imposed on the Appellant is harsh and excessive.
That sentence of mentorship by a senior lawyer for a period of one (I ) year imposed on the Appellant by the General Legal Council is alien to the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) and the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 1969 (LI 613)
By 3news.com|Ghana