Nearly six years after the Industrial Court of Appeal ruled in his favour, Aaron Mkhatshwa is still owed most of his E207,195 award — by his own lawyer. His case exposes a self-regulation system in which serious sanctions are rare, the fund meant to compensate cheated clients has no record of ever paying out, and the Attorney General’s Office acknowledges it has failed to enforce the law.
By Inhlase Reporter
Inhlase Centre for Investigative Journalism
WHAT TO KNOW
|
Nearly six years after the Industrial Court of Appeal ruled against the Happy Valley Hotel & Casino over his unfair dismissal of June 10, 2013, Aaron Muntu Mkhatshwa’s lawyer has still not paid over his award of E207,195.22. After 19 months of seeking redress through every avenue open to him, with little progress, he is now contemplating re-litigation in a country where lawyers’ fees are prohibitively expensive.
“Upon realising that my lawyer was playing hide-and-seek with me after the Industrial Court of Appeal had dismissed the Happy Valley Hotel & Casino appeal case on October 14, 2020, I decided to pursue various legal avenues to seek redress. I’ve been to the police, law society, disciplinary tribunal, human rights agency, and anti-corruption agency, which also referred me to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. But they all seem to be lenient to the lawyer even though I’ve shown them evidence of his fraudulent behaviour,” Mkhatshwa said.
At the centre of Mkhatshwa’s unpaid funds is a Manzini-based law firm, Nzima & Associates, that represented him at the Industrial Court of Appeal in 2020. Once the matter was won in court, he said, his lawyer Osborne Nzima avoided meeting him to discuss the legal service fees and release of funds despite his dozens attempts to see him. He said the law firm’s receptionist would always inform him that he was either too busy preparing for court matters or attending matters in court when he went to his office to follow up on the finalisation of the payout issue. “At times Nzima would leave a message or call me to say I should come on weekends to his office, only to find it locked,” he said.
His case is not unique in Eswatini, where complaints against lawyers who commit acts of professional misconduct abound. Another victim, a Mbabane-based bishop, who spoke on condition of anonymity in fear of victimization, echoed the public frustration. He said a lawyer, who went unpunished, swindled him more than E70,000 under the pretext of property transfer costs. When it turned out to be a scam, he lodged his complaint with the Law Society of Eswatini (LSE) – Eswatini’s self-regulatory body for legal practitioners. Inhlase could not independently verify his account.
“This proved to be a waste of time because the law society responsible for disciplining errant lawyers did nothing about it. I ended up regretting what I did because I looked stupid to the lawyer who was not even subjected to any disciplinary action by the very same regulatory body purported to protect clients from lawyers stealing our money,” he said.
“But they all seem to be lenient to the lawyer even though I’ve shown them evidence of his fraudulent behaviour.” — Aaron Muntu Mkhatshwa
Incessant Allegations
In June 2012, the rife allegations of lawyers’ misconduct prompted Parliament to establish a select committee to investigate lawyers suspected of mismanaging trust accounts and enriching themselves through fraudulent means. However, in Law Society of Swaziland v Speaker of the House of Assembly and Others (1145/2012) [2012] SZHC 171, decided on 9 August 2012, the High Court ruled in favour of the LSE, holding that Parliament lacked the power to conduct such investigations because there is a self-regulatory mechanism under the Legal Practitioners Act No. 15 of 1964.
One alternative remained open: under the Commissions of Enquiry Act No. 35 of 1963, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs could establish a commission of enquiry into the allegations of theft of clients’ funds by lawyers. Neither Chief Mgwagwa Gamedze, then Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs nor former Attorney General Majahenkhaba Dlamini invoked the Act. No such commission has ever been established.
In its investigation triggered by the incessant allegations of malpractice in the legal profession, Inhlase has uncovered systematic regulatory failures by the LSE and the AG’s Office, both empowered by the Legal Practitioners Act to regulate the legal profession. The disciplinary tribunal’s own reports record a stream of allegations that lawyers are stealing clients’ funds — and show that serious sanctions remain rare.
The Zwelethu Jele-led Disciplinary Tribunal has repeatedly reported cases of senior and junior lawyers allegedly stealing millions of emalangeni belonging to clients. Notably, most of the money they purportedly siphoned was from estate funds, leaving some beneficiaries destitute. Media reports have also described lawyers failing to attend clients’ matters in court despite being paid to do so.
Multiple reports of lawyers embezzling clients’ funds raise concerns over the effectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism. In its annual report dated June 25, 2026, the tribunal highlighted allegations of theft of clients’ funds as the most common and troubling form of professional misconduct pending before it. It noted that some of the amounts involved are substantial and alarming — posing a serious threat to the legal profession’s reputation, integrity and sustainability.
Is self-regulation effective?
In 2024, the tribunal recorded 24 lawyers facing disciplinary action for misconduct, according to the Times of Eswatini. According to its 2025 report released on June 25, 2026, the tribunal heard 18 disciplinary matters, most involving allegations of the misappropriation of clients’ funds. While 11 of them were still outstanding, only seven had been finalised. Two lawyers were recommended to be struck off the roll; the other five were found to have engaged in professional misconduct and received lesser sanctions.
According to the tribunal, this problem is aggravated by an increasing number of briefcase lawyers without established offices, making it difficult to serve them with the disciplinary processes. It noted the rise of such lawyers as one of the major challenges affecting the self-regulation of the legal profession.
“There are still a fair number of legal practitioners who practise law without formal offices. This is detrimental to the administration of justice within the profession and undermines public confidence in the disciplinary process,” the report stated.
It further noted an increasing tendency by some legal practitioners to ignore invitations to appear before the tribunal. Despite its authority to compel attendance through subpoenas, the tribunal reported that it is hamstrung by a requirement that the chief justice (CJ) countersigns every subpoena. The requirement is set by the Legal Practitioners (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 1989, section 27bis(2) of the Act. The regulations’ Form 5 provides a space for the CJ’s countersignature.
“While some practitioners simply fail to respond to correspondence, others repeatedly submit medical certificates of questionable credibility to avoid attending hearings. The delays deny complainants timely redress and weaken the effectiveness of the disciplinary process,” the report stated.
It also highlighted the suppression of complaints lodged against some executive committee members, which were not referred to the tribunal for investigation, creating a perception that they are protected from scrutiny and accountability. It also blamed them for repeated failure to act expeditiously on sanctions recommended by the tribunal, which weakens the effectiveness of the disciplinary process.
“In several instances, complainants copied the tribunal in follow-up correspondence or contacted it directly seeking updates. Such practices erode confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the law society’s disciplinary processes,” the report stated.
Non-Compliance
The all-lawyer tribunal attributed the surge in unprofessional legal conduct to the growing number of lawyers operating without trust accounts. Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act requires every lawyer to keep a trust account separate from the firm’s business account.
The same section empowers the AG, or a nominee, to inspect lawyers’ books of account to guard against the misuse of clients’ funds. The rising number of lawyers accused of defrauding trust accounts, documented in the tribunal’s reports, points to the AG’s failure to enforce compliance.
Sibonginkosi Dlamini, senior counsel in the AG’s Chambers, acknowledged the ongoing failure of the AG’s Office to force lawyers to comply with the law requiring them to submit books and certificates to the AG for inspection and filing.
“In 2018, the AG and CJ tried to enforce compliance by taking non-compliant lawyers to court and debarring some because of a low rate of compliance at the time. But their effort was short-lived due to a court challenge filed by the Law Society. Right now, I don’t know whether to say we don’t comply or they don’t comply,” he said.
Responding to Inhlase questions sent via WhatsApp, AG Sifiso Mashampu Khumalo did not outline any current interventions to protect clients. Instead, he told the Inhlase reporter to “forward cases on misappropriation for my attention…if you want to help the people.”
“Do you have cases at hand as of today on misappropriation, forward them for my attention instead of making blanket statements (that’s if you want to help the people). If you have been following this, as you claim, you would surely know that lawyer so-and-so was taken to court. Lawyer so-and-so has been debarred. And that madam so-and-so got her money back. Next time, be thorough; don’t shoot from the hip. I don’t have good time on my hands,” the AG said. He did not provide names, case numbers or dates for the cases he referred to. Inhlase could establish only one recent case: on March 14, 2026, the Times of Eswatini reported a lawyer accused of stealing more than E629,000 from Eswatini Women Properties Multi-Co-operative owned by a group of elderly women, who faces prospects of being struck off the roll.
When Mkhatshwa approached the AG’s Office to seek legal advice on his matter, he said, he received none of the remedies the AG described to Inhlase.
“Right now, I don’t know whether to say we don’t comply or they don’t comply.” — Sibonginkosi Dlamini, senior counsel, Attorney General’s Chambers
The Act itself is six decades old, and its penalties read accordingly. A trust-account offence carries a fine not exceeding E500 or imprisonment of up to 18 months under section 24(8). A penalty for professional misconduct under section 27ter, has a ceiling of E1,000 or a three-month suspension. Set against the millions of emalangeni the tribunal says are at stake, the deterrent is nominal.
Frustrated by the 19 months of little progress, Mkhatshwa wondered why the LSE does not have a special fund to compensate clients cheated by its members. Section 43 of the Act requires the LSE to establish a Law Society Fidelity Fund to compensate clients who lost funds through theft, fraud or dishonesty of a lawyer or clerical staff in a law firm. Section 43 (10) also debars LSE members from operating without a fidelity certificate.
The invisible Fidelity Fund
Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration (CHRPA) executive secretary Phakama Shili said the Fidelity Fund exists in name only. The law requires it, he said, but weak oversight has left it unenforced. Law Society financial statements seen by Inhlase show, however, that the fund does exist — its money is invested with the asset manager STANLIB. What Inhlase could not find is any record of the fund paying out a claim, and the LSE did not answer questions about it.
“When there is a call for accountability, the fidelity fund should be declared. The public needs to know how much has been paid out from it. The law society can even modernise it into an insurance policy. But the fidelity fund seems to exist in name only,” Shili said.
On the weak oversight, he called for transforming the all-lawyer disciplinary tribunal into a multi-stakeholder body to broaden its focus from self-interest to the public interest. He also highlighted interlinkages with the laws administered by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) and the Eswatini Financial Intelligence Unit (EFIU) to strengthen its regulatory effectiveness.
“A misappropriation of a client’s funds must be treated as both a professional misconduct and a criminal offence. If a lawyer who provides a legal service fails to remit the client’s money, that is theft by false pretence. Such a person should be professionally disciplined and criminally charged. I’m aware that Mkhatshwa reported the matter to the police and disciplinary tribunal. The Commission is still waiting for an update from the disciplinary tribunal,” the CHRPA executive secretary said.
“The fidelity fund seems to exist in name only.” — Phakama Shili, executive secretary, Commission on Human Rights and Public Administration
Having reported the matter to the Manzini police on January 11, 2025, Mkhatshwa suspected that the police were shielding the lawyer shown by the six-month investigation delay under the pretext that the assigned investigating officer was on leave. His suspicion deepened on June 8, 2026, when assistant superintendent Sipho Metfula asked him to share his bank account number on the explanation, he said, that a magistrate had requested it to issue an order to force the lawyer’s bank to release information on the unremitted funds, only to discover, he said, that the number was passed to the lawyer instead. Shortly afterwards, he received a Standard Bank notification of a E70,000 deposit on his mobile phone from the lawyer. Inhlase has seen a copy of the bank statement with Nzima as the depositor. The deposit leaves E137,195.22 of the E207,195.22 award outstanding before any lawful deduction of legal costs.
“I’ve decided not to touch it because I doubt if it’s lawful for police to shield a suspect facing a disciplinary action before the Law Society. There has been deafening silence from both parties since the E70,000 was deposited into my account. Instead, the disciplinary tribunal informed me that the lawyer had submitted a sick note as a reason for his failure to attend one of the hearings. The secretary told me the tribunal has already approached the CJ to sign a subpoena,” Mkhatshwa said.
Asked about the police conduct, a legal expert, who preferred anonymity in fear of retaliation, said it amounts to defeating the ends of justice. He explained that the role of the police is to investigate the reported cases and provide sufficient evidence to the prosecuting authority not to interfere with the legal process. “This is a clear case of defeating the ends of justice by the police. Instead of investigating the reported case, the police have decided to shield the accused from being prosecuted for his wrongdoing by the prosecuting authority,” he said.
Reached for comment on September 17, 2026, on the alleged police act of defeating the ends of justice, Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) Chief Police Information and Communications Officer Inspector Phindile Vilakati refused to comment. She said REPS deals with accredited and vetted media outlets found in the Ministry of Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) registry.
Coordinating Assembly of Non-Governmental Organisations (Cango) executive director Thembinkosi Dlamini said self-regulation only works where there are strong institutions with ethical guardrails to guard the profession and punish those who step outside. He blamed the failures on a judicial recruitment system not based on transparency and merit. He had called on the CJ to step up and bring order in the justice system so that those who want to play fair would rise and thrive. Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala died in September 2026, before Inhlase could put the justice system’s challenges to him.
“When citizens run to the courts, they cannot be afforded protection because those who dispense justice might have skeletons in their cupboards from their practice days. In the absence of a fair, transparent and robust recruitment process in the judiciary, junior counsels know that they might never be called upon to account for their actions and there are no sanctions for deviant behaviour,” Dlamini said.
On April 8, 2025, 17 months before publication, Inhlase delivered questions to the Law Society Office seeking answers on the theft of clients’ funds, the effectiveness of the self-regulatory mechanism, the state of the fidelity fund and the total number of practising lawyers in the country. Former LSE secretary Charity Simelane, who is now a Judicial Service Commission (JSC) member, had promised to respond, but she never did. On August 10, 2026, Inhlase emailed a copy of the letter to the newly elected LSE secretary, Thulani Sibandze, requesting the answers with a few additional ones on transforming the all-lawyer tribunal into a multi-stakeholder body and the reimbursement of embezzled funds, among others, but he had not responded at the time of publication.
On July 23, 2026, Inhlase sent questions to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Prince Simelane, on the LSE’s self-regulatory failures, reported theft of clients’ funds by lawyers and urgent interventions. Follow-up messages with his private secretary, Zwelethemba Motsa, were unsuccessful because he kept on saying the minister was too busy to be interviewed or respond in writing. He had not responded at the time of publication.
Approached for comment between July 29 and August 14 on the six-year failure to pay his client in full, lawyer Osborne Nzima acknowledged that he had paid him only E70,000 – the exact amount that appeared in Mkhatshwa’s bank account. He explained that he has not paid him the full amount because he is yet to deduct his legal service costs. He said he is awaiting feedback from the High Court taxing master to know the exact bill of costs. He then promised to get back to Inhlase on the final payout issue. All follow-up calls, the last on August 14, went unanswered.
Six years after the courts ruled in his favour, Mkhatshwa is still owed the balance of his award — holding a E70,000 deposit he is afraid to touch, and still waiting for any of the bodies charged with protecting him to act.
All photos: Facebook & LinkedIn – Facebook & LinkedIn – Justice Ministry, Law Society