A Call From The Solicitor General
The Alberta Law Society Hearing Committee has found a member’s conduct deserving of sanction
Kelechi Madu, KC is a member of the LSA and at the time of the events in question, was also Alberta’s Minister of Justice and Solicitor General – one of the highest profile and powerful positions associated with the administration of justice and law enforcement in Alberta. On March 10, 2021, Mr. Madu was pulled over for a cell phone violation while driving in Edmonton, Alberta (Traffic Stop). Mr. Madu denied that he had been using a cell phone at the time. The attending Edmonton Police Service (EPS) constable disagreed and issued a violation ticket for distracted driving (Ticket). Rather than continuing to his office at the Legislature (as previously intended), Mr. Madu drove to the closest parking lot and called the Chief of the EPS (Call). It is undisputed that the Ticket was what prompted the Call. The purpose and import of the Call were the focus of this proceeding.
The member had come to Canada from Nigeria
In 2016, Mr. Madu became active in provincial politics. In the 2019 provincial election, Mr. Madu was elected as the member of the Legislative Assembly for Edmonton-South West (April 16, 2019). On April 30, 2019, he was appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs, in which role he served until August 25, 2020, when he was appointed Alberta’s Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. With that appointment, he became the first Black Minister of Justice and Solicitor General in Alberta and Canada.
The events caused a public controversy
In January 2022, the Call to Chief D.M. became public when it was, according to Mr. Madu, purportedly “leaked” to the media. Mr. Madu described what followed as a “media firestorm” and a “political issue.”
Aanalysis and findings
Given the importance of public perception and perceived impropriety to the substance of this case, the Committee thinks it important to address at the outset the central theme presented on behalf of Mr. Madu: that this is an “unusual or remarkable prosecution” that should have never gone this far. With respect, it is far from that. The process that led to the Citation was initiated by a public complaint, not one initiated by the LSA. Even though Mr. Madu challenges the bona fides of the complainant, there is no issue between the parties that the ensuing Complaint was investigated and assessed in accord with the LSA’s formal process, applicable to all complaints, of whatever nature. It was only following that investigation, by independent counsel, that the Citation was issued. Moreover, Mr. Madu has had a fulsome opportunity, with learned counsel, to present his case in its best light at this Hearing, with the strongest advocacy. Whether or not Mr. Madu agrees with its result, there was nothing unusual or remarkable about the process.
In short, this case is about a call that never should have happened. Almost immediately after failing to convince an EPS traffic constable that he was not using his cell phone while driving, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Alberta used his position, and information he had by virtue of that position, to call the private cell phone of the Chief of the EPS. He told him that he had just been issued a ticket for distracted driving and also raised concerns about whether he had been racially profiled or illegally surveilled. While much time was spent in this Hearing about the reason for the Call, the fact of the Call, in the circumstances of this case, undermines the administration of justice. Mr. Madu’s conduct falls short of the standard he is required to uphold, particularly given his unique status at the time of the call: Minister of Justice and Solicitor General. In making the call to Chief D.M., Mr. Madu acted in a manner that is incompatible with the best interests of the public and the members of the LSA and also engaged in conduct that tends to harm the standing of the legal profession generally. It is therefore conduct deserving of sanction.
The Committee has carefully considered Mr. Madu’s arguments to the contrary. They are not established by the applicable law or the facts of this case. Moreover, Mr. Madu’s attempt to distinguish what “prompted” the Call from its “purpose”—and to thus entirely disconnect the Ticket from why he called Chief D.M.—is not credible.
In rendering its decision, the Committee wishes to make clear that this case is not about whether Mr. Madu was, in fact, using his cell phone at the time of the Traffic Stop, and thus not about whether the Ticket was supportable on that basis. There is also no suggestion that the Traffic Stop was actually the result of racial profiling or illegal surveillance. Constable R.B. is not being accused of any such conduct, nor has any formal complaint been made about his conduct.
Credibility
In assessing the credibility of Mr. Madu’s insistence that the Call was unconnected with the Ticket, we have taken into account all the evidence, including the details of Mr. Madu’s background, his position, details of what he was doing and all the in camera and redacted evidence. The Committee’s assessment of Mr. Madu’s credibility with respect to the purpose of the Call and its purported disconnect with the Ticket has therefore included consideration of evidence that we have found does not inform public perception in this case. Weighing everything, the evidence simply does not support Mr. Madu’s assertion that, in the space of only a few minutes between the Traffic Stop and the Call, on an issue he was so worked up about—and continued to be worked up about—that he had managed to completely put the Ticket on the back burner. For all of the reasons above, we therefore find that the Ticket was, at a minimum, a reason for the Call and one of the subjects of the Call.
Thus
The Committee has found that the Citation has been proven on a balance of probabilities based on clear, cogent and convincing evidence and that Mr. Madu’s conduct is deserving of sanction. Accordingly, the Committee will reconvene for the sanction phase in this matter.
(Mike Frisch)