“Our decision is nevertheless firm” Lewis Uriri’s decision to disclaim Wicknell Chivayo’s public gift is a matter of the highest importance, and it must not pass without emphatic commendation. As I have always said, some decisions matter. This is one of them. First, who is Lewis Uriri? I will say only what is necessary. Lewis is one of Zimbabwe’s most senior Advocates: he’s an Advocate, not an Attorney. It is worth recalling that these are distinct branches of the profession; not every lawyer is an Advocate. Among Advocates who remain ACTIVELY engaged in practice, Lewis is the most senior. There are, of course, eminent Advocates such as Eric Matinenga who are no longer practising with the same intensity and I deliberately exclude them from my characterization. By seniority of call to the Bar, I rank immediately after Lewis. That context matters. Lewis’s decision to disclaim a vuvuzela gift from a former “client” is not merely an act of personal moral courage. It is the legal profession, at its highest litigation levels, choosing independence over convenience and principle over gain. It is a declaration that the profession still recognises that some things matter more than money, comfort or personal need; indeed, an affirmation that principles are more important than needs. I see in this an assurance that these ideals that become our profession are still front and centre of decision making in some amongst us. In taking this position, Lewis has sent a clear message to the profession and to the country: principles are not ornaments to be invoked when convenient. They are obligations to be honoured, especially when doing so carries a cost even when that cost is an Autobiography. His example reminds us that professional independence is not an abstract ideal. It is tested precisely when accepting would be easier than refusing. The timing is also significant. This comes against the backdrop of religious organisations that have abandoned their moral responsibilities, leaving the country without the leadership and courage it has a right to expect. What Lewis has done therefore carries significance far beyond the immediate discussion. It says that when some people refuse to stand, others will still be found who are willing to do what is right. Others have chosen one course. Lewis has chosen another and, in doing so, he has answered a legitimate public yearning for a breath of fresh air. We are not as morally beyond the pale as some may think. Among us, a remnant remains: people who will still choose principle over gain, independence over influence, and what is right over what is easy. Zimbabwe may after all, still be saved.