Nov 14, 2016
Prime Minister Najib Razak should withdraw proposed amendments to Malaysia’s Legal Profession Act 1976 because they will undermine the independence of the Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Bar Council, said ICJ today in a letter together with other human rights organizations.
The amendments, which will be introduced when Parliament opens in October, seek to allow the Minister in charge of legal affairs to appoint two members of the Bar Council.
Furthermore, they aim to restrict the eligibility for leadership positions to those elected by the Bar Council by the various State Bars, thereby severely limiting those who can stand for office.
Should these amendments take effect, the current president and vice-president and the leaders of the State Bar committees will be precluded from any leadership role in the Bar Council.
“These amendments appear to be another attempt to muzzle an independent institution that has consistently been vocal in its defense of the rule of law and human rights in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“The Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Bar Council, are more important than ever to help protect the rights of people and the rule of law, especially during this critical time in Malaysia when these are imperiled,” he added.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (UN Basic Principles) guarantees the right to freedom of association of lawyers.
It specifically provides that “lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests.” Furthermore, the UN Basic Principles provide that the governing bodies of professional associations of lawyers “shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”
“These amendments follow other efforts by the government to undermine the Malaysian Bar’s independence and prevent its members from engaging critically in upholding the standards of professional integrity and independence,” Zarifi said. “This move seems part of the Malaysian government’s efforts to stifle civil society and silence critical voices.”
The ICJ urges the government of Malaysia to respect the independence of the Malaysian Bar and its governing body, the Bar Council, and not pass these proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976.
The letter to Prime Minister Najib Razak was signed by ICJ, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Federation for Human Rights, Civil Rights Defenders, the Asia Democracy Network, Fortify Rights, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, and the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights.
Background
Early this year, Malaysian authorities commenced sedition investigations against members of the Malaysian Bar after a motion was passed by a majority vote during the institution’s 70th Annual General Assembly calling for the resignation of Attorney General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali.
The Malaysian Bar demanded the resignation of the Attorney General after he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by the Prime Minister. A month after, a proposal was made by parliamentarian Datuk Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur to make the Attorney General automatically the chairman of the Bar Council.
The ICJ has denounced these efforts, pointing out that these are inconsistent with the essential guarantees for the functioning of an independent legal profession under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
malaysia-ngo-letter-on-lpa-amend-advocacy-open-letters-2016-eng (full text of letter, in PDF)
Nov 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Schukurov v Azerbaijan, finding that the right to petition the Court had been violated by the search of a lawyer’s premises and seizure of documents.
The ICJ submitted a third party intervention in the case, outlining international law and standards relevant to legal professional privilege and the seizure of legal documents.
The case files were seized as part of a criminal investigation opened against the lawyer, Intigam Aliyev, who was representing the applicants in the case. The Court found that the search and seizure by the Azeri authorities had violated article 34 of the Convention, which stipulates that States must not hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of individual application to the Court.
The ICJ notes that the Court’s judgment follows its earlier finding of a violation of article 34 in the case of Annagi Hajibeyli v Azerbaijan, which arose from the same incident.
The ICJ stresses that these searches of lawyers’ premises are contrary to international standards on the role of lawyers. It is particularly worrying that they form part of a pattern of harassment of lawyers in Azerbaijan, including abusive disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions. Such harassment damages the ability of lawyers to protect human rights through the judicial process, and undermines the independence of the legal profession.
The decision of the Court should now be fully and promptly executed, the ICJ said.
Nov 5, 2016 | News
Today the ICJ, in partnership with the National Collegium of Advocates of Kazakhstan, hosts a major regional conference in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on the role and independence of the legal profession in Central Asia.
Bringing together bar associations and lawyers from across Central Asia, as well as representatives of bar associations from European countries and international experts, the conference explores how associations of lawyers can strengthen the role of lawyers in the justice system.
Participants will discuss the organization and self-governance of the profession in each of the countries of Central Asia; will analyse the obstacles lawyers face in protecting the rights of their clients; and will debate standards and good practices in protecting the integrity of the profession through codes of ethics, disciplinary proceedings and professional training.
“Across Central Asia, every day, lawyers do vital work to protect the human rights of their clients. But they can only do this effectively when their independence is protected in law and in practice, and when high ethical and professional standards are enforced by self-governing associations of lawyers.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and CIS programme
“At a time when the organization of the profession is being renewed in several countries of the region, this conference aims to ensure that lawyers work together to learn from each others’ experiences, and from international law and standards, to strengthen associations of lawyers in upholding the vital role of the profession,” she added.
Download the agenda in English and Russian here:
central-asia-agenda-conference-legal-prof-news-web-stories-2016-rus-eng (in PDF)
Sep 22, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke to continuing concerns for human rights and the rule of law in Swaziland, during discussion at the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of Swaziland’s Universal Periodic Review.
The statement read as follows:
The ICJ is concerned by the lack of implementation of recommendations accepted by the Government of Swaziland during the first UPR cycle.
The Swazi Government undertook to take concrete and immediate measures to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. However judges continue to be appointed on the basis of corrupt patronage. The current Chief Justice and another Supreme Court judge are generally perceived to have been appointed on the basis of their traditional roles as former headman and chief, respectively, in the absence of any formal or transparent merit-based recruitment process.
Swaziland still has not ratified key international instruments, including the Rome Statute, the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which they accepted during the last cycle.
The police have continued to ban and disrupt peaceful protests, relying on the Suppression of Terrorism Act, the Sedition and Subversive Activities Act and Public Order Act. Human rights defenders and political activists continue to be arrested and charged with criminal offences for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
Swaziland has not enacted into law the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, or any other law guaranteeing gender equality.
For these reasons, the ICJ calls upon the Government of Swaziland to accept and fully and promptly implement UPR recommendations from this cycle relevant to:
- Ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary;
- Ratifying and domesticating the international instruments they accepted at the last cycle;
- Aligning national laws with international standards to guarantee freedom of expression, association and assembly;
- Enacting the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill into legislation.
The statement may be downloaded in PDF format here: hrc33-upr-swaziland-2016
Sep 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ expresses its deep concern at recent developments in Botswana in respect of impeachment proceedings initiated against four judges and their suspension from office pending a disciplinary hearing.
The four judges, constituting one-third of the 12 Member High Court of Botswana, Justices Key Dingake, Modiri Letsididi, Ranier Busang and Mercy Garekwe, were suspended under section 97 of the Botswana Constitution on allegations of misconduct and bringing the name of the judiciary into disrepute.
The ICJ calls on all involved judicial and executive authorities to scrupulously respect the principles governing the independence of the judiciary in their conduct in addressing this serious situation, including in their actions throughout the course of any impeachment and disciplinary proceedings.
On 28 August 2015, the President of Botswana, Ian Khama, suspended the four judges after they, along with the other eight members of the Court, signed a petition directed to the Chief Justice.
The petition had objected, among other things, to alleged poor conditions of service, as well as disparaging comments the Chief Justice was said have made about another judge’s ethnicity and defamatory statements related to corruption.
The petition also advocated for the Chief Justice’s impeachment and was copied to all judges of the High Court.
The Chief Justice and the President took issue with the contents and tone of the petition, alleging it to be disrespectful of the Chief Justice and causing disrepute of the judiciary in the eyes of members of the public.
On the 4th of September 2015, the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) issued a statement in which it condemned the actions taken by the Chief Justice and President against the four judges.
The LSB considered that the case ought to have been resolved administratively rather than through what it said was “selective” impeachment of only four out of the 12 judges, particularly as no prima facie evidence existed that a crime had been committed.
The LSB alleged that “the selective approach in suspending and subjecting to a Tribunal only four (4) of the twelve (12) Judges who had signed the Petition, supported the widely held view that the action was a witch-hunt intended to remove certain Judges and ensure a more Executive Minded Bench.”
On the 23rd of September 2015, the LSB issued another statement following reports that three of the 12 judges had withdrawn their signatures to the petition after the judges had been “offered an ‘amnesty’ against any possible action being taken against them if they retract their association and / or apologise”.
The LSB went on to criticize an amnesty “made only to a select few of the Judges and not all” the 12 judges who signed the petition.
On 24 September 2015, the LSB issued a further statement calling on the Chief Justice to resign or face impeachment after the JSC offered amnesty to three other judges, who had signed or associated themselves with the petition.
The amnesty extended to any possible action being taken against them if they retracted their association and / or apologized. The offer of amnesty was not made to all 12 judges that had signed the petition, and in particular, it was not made to the four suspended judges.
On 28 September 2015, the Impeachment tribunal was to have commenced hearing of the matter, but the four concerned judges instituted litigation against appointment of the Tribunal and their suspension, which litigation is still pending.
Since then, the courts have been irregularly issuing instructions, contrary to proper procedure, through the Registrar of the High Court in the pending litigation, and given that the Registrar is party to the litigation, this creates an inherent conflict of interest.
These developments surrounding this case have raised serious concerns over the independence of the judiciary generally but more specifically the prospects for an independent, impartial and fair hearing for the suspended judges.
Read mor
botswana-impeachment-judges-news-web-stories-2016-eng (full text in PDF)
