- Mpofu SC has filed a High Court application asking for the LPC’s conduct to be declared unconstitutional, invalid, and void from the beginning.
- He alleges bias, retrospective application of rules, unlawful media leaks, and a personal vendetta involving Craig Watt-Pringle and CASAC.
- The application asks for the charges to be set aside and for punitive costs against the LPC as an organ of state.
Advocate Dali Mpofu SC has gone on the offensive against the Legal Practice Council (LPC), filing an application in the Johannesburg High Court that seeks to place the conduct of the legal regulator under constitutional scrutiny. TheLPC said it will oppose the application.
In a founding affidavit sworn on 24 October 2025, Mpofu frames the matter starkly, stating: “This is an application to declare the conduct of the second respondent to be unconstitutional and invalid and/or to review the decision of the respondents to institute the remaining 4 charges against me.”
At its core, the application recasts the disciplinary proceedings not as an inquiry into professional misconduct, but as an abuse of regulatory power that infringes fundamental rights and undermines the independence of the legal profession.
The charges in detail
The disciplinary saga began with seven charges, three of which were later withdrawn, leaving four allegations contained in an amended charge sheet dated 9 May 2025. These charges arise from Mpofu’s conduct in high-profile litigation and public proceedings.
The first alleges that Mpofu brought the legal profession into disrepute through public statements and courtroom behaviour. The second accuses him of impugning the character of senior figures, including former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, during the parliamentary impeachment inquiry into Busisiwe Mkhwebane.
The third charge claims he failed in his duty to the court through conduct said to be disruptive and disrespectful. The fourth alleges improper advocacy practices, including aggressive cross-examination and public commentary that purportedly undermined judicial integrity.
Mpofu rejects the charges in uncompromising terms. “No reasonable professional legal body populated by legal practitioners would institute such charges which aim to prohibit legitimate cross-examination, among other things,” he states, arguing that the allegations strike at the heart of adversarial advocacy.
He further contends that the charges are legally unsustainable because they rely on Rule 2A of the Code of Conduct, which only came into force on 8 December 2023. “The charges were premised on Rule 2A, which took effect on 08 December 2023, well after the alleged commission of the offences. The Rule cannot operate with retrospective effect,” Mpofu argues.
Annexures and the evidentiary record
The founding affidavit is supported by nine annexures, labelled DM1 to DM9, which Mpofu says collectively expose a pattern of bias, leaks, and procedural irregularity.
DM1 contains transcripts of radio interviews allegedly given by Craig Watt-Pringle on SAFM and the SABC, in which Mpofu was criticised and accused of undermining the profession. Mpofu describes the fallout in personal terms: “Since then, there has understandably been very severe personal animosity between Watt-Pringle. This was so despite my own vindication and acquittal and the inexplicable failure and/or refusal of the LPC to charge Watt-Pringle.”
DM2 and DM3 comprise correspondence between Mpofu and the LPC, including a letter dated 11 April 2025, written after the charges were allegedly leaked to the media by the Council for the Advancement of the Constitution (CASAC)’s Lawson Naidoo before Mpofu had even received them.
Mpofu characterises this as a grave violation of his rights, stating: “It has since transpired that a Mr Lawson Naidoo, acting on behalf of CASAC, deliberately and maliciously leaked the charges to the media when he was not entitled to do so due to the nature of the matter and the obvious invasion of my privacy.”
Further correspondence contained in DM4 and DM5 reflects Mpofu’s challenges to the legality of the process and his demands for disclosure of the record. DM6 is the amended charge sheet itself, while DM7 records the disciplinary hearing of 30 April 2025, at which Mpofu’s legal team indicated their intention to institute review proceedings, resulting in the matter being postponed sine die.
DM8 and DM9 relate to CASAC’s attempt to challenge its exclusion from the disciplinary process, which Mpofu says illustrates the organisation’s partisan involvement and improper influence.
According to Mpofu, these annexures form the evidentiary backbone of his case, revealing what he describes as a coordinated effort to target him through unlawful means.
Grounds for review and constitutional challenge
Mpofu advances overlapping grounds of review under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and the broader principle of legality. Central to his case is the allegation of bias arising from Watt-Pringle’s involvement.
“The pivotal role played by Watt-Pringle in the effort to bring these charges to fruition when he ought properly to have played no role owing to his conflict of interests in the outcome, on its own, colours the decision with inherent bias,” Mpofu asserts.
He further argues that the decision to charge him is irrational and unreasonable, particularly because it seeks to apply disciplinary rules retrospectively and to penalise what he describes as legitimate forensic conduct.
On constitutional grounds, Mpofu contends that the proceedings infringe a range of protected rights. “The decision infringes upon my fundamental human rights, including but not limited to my rights to human dignity, equality, practice of my chosen profession, reputation, opinion and free expression,” he states.
Relief sought
In his notice of motion, Mpofu asks the court to declare the conduct of the LPC unconstitutional, to review and set aside the amended charges, and to grant just and equitable relief. He also seeks a punitive costs order, arguing that the matter warrants public censure of the regulator.
“Given the overall conduct and behaviour of the respondents, this is a matter which calls for the public censure of the LPC and the expression of the court’s displeasure by mulcting the respondent organ of state, with punitive costs,” Mpofu concludes.
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
