South African based law firm Bowmans has reportedly summoned one its associates David F.K. Mpanga, a renowned Ugandan lawyer to clear the air whether he still represents Bank of Uganda despite a High Court ruling banning the counsel from offering legal representation to the Central Bank.
The reputable company spanning South Africa to Egypt was prompted to issue summons after information on its website that Mpanga was still an advisor of Bank of Uganda was reported by the Ugandan media was wrong and misrepresented.
Mpanga said he advised Bank of Uganda in its recent takeover of a financial institution which appears to be Crane Bank.
Mpanga lists the above role as among his relevant experiences published on Bowmans website which is widely viewed/read across the globe.
This definitely adds weight to Mpanga’s CV and any client in need of a lawyer with a wealthy experience in financial affairs would choose Mr. Mpanga without knowing his ‘littered’ past and having misguided the Central Bank through Crane Bank (under receivership) into suing businessman Sudhir Ruparelia.
Unfortunately, the Central Bank lost the commercial litigation last week attracting huge sums of money as legal costs amounting to shs 70 billion, and will lose more in its attempt to appeal the loss.
It therefore leaves a lot of questions why Mr. Mpanga as experienced as he is, was part of the legal officers who drafted a bad case that left a legal gap.
Further Mpanga together with his associate Masembe were last year dropped by Bank of Uganda as their legal representatives after Court ruled they were conflicted.
Businessman Sudhir Ruparelia who formerly owned Crane Bank dragged the duo to court because they had worked for him and his companies and therefore crossing to BoU would be a case of conflict of interest.
Commercial Court concurred with Sudhir and ordered BoU to drop the two senior counsels. Against that background BoU last year in November hired a new law firm Sebalu and Lule advocates to replace Mpanga and ilk.
Therefore, Mpanga would be lying to the public and Bowman firm that he still represents Bank of Uganda.
“The recent ruling in the Commercial Court also shows he rendered incompetent advice to Bank of Uganda, because he of all people should have known that a Receiver under FIA 2004 cannot sue. Because of his bad advice Bank of Uganda/tax payer will now be stuck with a huge legal bill,” an official in Bank of Uganda who wished not be named said.
He adds; “Bowmans should urgently edit Mpangas profile and stop misleading people. Or may be actually put, He misadvised BoU in a recent takeover of a financial institutionbecause if he had given right advice, all the flaws identified by COSASE and Court wouldn’t have arisen.”
What Mpanga has done contravenes the regulations of Bowmans which state that “Bowmans spares no effort in striving to conduct business in a responsible, ethical and sustainable manner. Honesty, integrity and fair dealings are central to our engagement with our clients and other stakeholders.”
Mpanga’s profile has since been edited.
