The Law Society of Alberta’s decision on Kaycee Madu is unjust
Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP)
Improving public policy in Canada by generating research, providing insight and informing debate.
The case should prompt an examination of how racial bias influences professional and legal standards.
The October decision by the Law Society of Alberta concerning former justice minister Kaycee Madu is deeply troubling, not only because it dismisses the realities of racial profiling but also because it fails to recognize the broader context surrounding the events.
As Alberta’s first BIPOC justice minister, Madu made significant efforts to drive systemic change in policing and racial profiling, advocating fair treatment for all Albertans. Unfortunately, this ruling threatens to overshadow his many contributions and sends a message that any efforts to reform institutional practices will encounter resistance.
The case at hand
The issue hinges on Madu’s call to the Edmonton chief of police immediately after he received a ticket in 2021 for using a cell phone while driving.?Madu denies doing that.
Key details revealed during the Law Society hearing have been disregarded. Both Madu and the chief of police confirmed that Madu did not request the ticket’s cancellation or any special treatment.
Rather, he expressed concern about being unfairly targeted, especially amid ongoing friction between Madu and law enforcement over his policies against carding and racial profiling.
When news of the call was first reported in 2022, Jason Kenney, who was then Alberta premier, appointed?former Justice Adele Kent to review the issue. Kent?concluded?that while Madu did not interfere in the administration of justice, he attempted to do so and created a “reasonable perception ” of interference.
The Law Society decision in October concluded Madu “undermined respect for the administration of justice.” A punishment has yet to be determined.
Ultimately, though, this ruling highlights a situation where efforts to challenge entrenched systems are met with resistance.
This should prompt an examination of how racial bias influences professional and legal standards, rather than reinforce the barriers that Madu worked hard to dismantle. The decision is unjust and fails to acknowledge the context of Madu’s work and the obstacles he confronted.
Madu’s reforms met resistance
Madu was Canada’s first Black provincial justice minister. His time in that portfolio in Alberta from 2020-22 occurred during a period of heightened scrutiny of police practices, following George Floyd’s death and the resulting racial justice protests.
He pursued reforms to curb racial profiling and unlawful police surveillance, efforts that inevitably made him a potential target for resistance. The timing of his traffic ticket — as he was headed to the legislature to discuss illegal police surveillance in Lethbridge — raises questions that cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence.
Madu’s choice not to dispute the ticket and pay the resulting fine – based on advice from political staff – highlights the challenges faced by leaders of colour who must navigate a narrow path to avoid accusations of impropriety.
This decision carries broader implications. When a Black leader advocates change and takes steps to address racial inequities, they should not face reprimand for voicing concerns about their own encounters with law enforcement.
The evidence from the hearing clearly showed that Madu raised the issue of racial profiling during the call and did not seek special treatment.
The ruling therefore sets a troubling precedent, suggesting that any challenge to the status quo may be met with punitive measures, potentially deterring other Black leaders from addressing institutional practices or sharing their experiences with discrimination.
While this case may appear to be about a traffic ticket, it reflects a deeper issue concerning the treatment of individuals who challenge established systems.
Marginalized individuals in positions of power often use their roles to resist systemic racism. Yet, the Law Society’s decision overlooks these factors, reducing his reaction to a perceived misuse of power, while ignoring the unique pressures faced by a BIPOC justice minister striving for reform.
Rather than penalizing him for raising legitimate concerns, the Law Society should support, not punish, members who advocate systemic change.