Age 70 Limit For Lawyers: AHRC Condemns De Facto CJs Announcement

Erasing the memory of law, an independent judiciary and the legal professionNovember 18, 2013 | The announcement by the de facto chief justice, Mohan Pieris, to introduce regu ations in order to imit the ma!imum age to "ractice as a a#yer to $0 and to im"ose further regu ations for the rene#a of the icenses of a#yers every t#o years, comes as no sur"rise% The government&s aim is to bring the mi itary into a areas of ife and to s"read an authoritarian ru e through the entire fabric of society% This im" ies the u"rooting of the ega system as one based on ru e of a# and the inde"endence of the judiciary to one #hich is regu ated by the e!ecutive% The tas' assigned to the de facto () is to resha"e a as"ects of ega and judicia "ractices to suit this radica transformation to#ards a com" ete y contro ed system in De facto Chief Justice Mohan Pieris #hich the e!ecutive can do #hatever it #ishes, irres"ective of #hat the conse*uences are to the ega rights of the individua citi+ens of ,ri -an'a% This ne# remo ding re*uires the erasing of every "ossib e agency that #ou d resist it% Natura y, it is the a#yers that the "eo" e #ou d resort to #hen they are faced #ith assau ts on their ega rights% The ro e of the a#yers under these circumstances is to educate the itigants on their rights and a so to assist them in every "ossib e #ay to fight for their rights #ithin the frame#or' of the a#% Read More Erasing The Memory Of Law An independent judiciary and the legal profession

( November !" #$ %" &olombo" 'ri Lan(a )uardian* The announcement by the de facto chief justice" Mohan +ieris" to introduce regulations in order to limit the ma,imum age to practice as a lawyer to -$ and to impose further regulations for the renewal of the licenses of lawyers every two years" comes as no surprise. The government/s aim is to bring the military into all areas of life and to spread an authoritarian rule through the entire fabric of society. This implies the uprooting of the legal system as one based on rule of law and the independence of the judiciary to one which is regulated by the e,ecutive. The tas( assigned to the de facto &0 is to reshape all aspects of legal and judicial practices to suit this radical transformation towards a completely controlled system in which the e,ecutive can do whatever it wishes" irrespective of what the conse1uences are to the legal rights of the individual citi2ens of 'ri Lan(a. This new remolding re1uires the erasing of every possible agency that would resist it. Naturally" it is the lawyers that the people would resort to when they are faced with assaults on their legal rights. The role of the lawyers under these circumstances is to educate the litigants on their rights and also to assist them in every possible way to fight for their rights within the framewor( of the law. 3hat Mohan +ieris is saying is this4 the game of playing by the legal rules is now over. Of course" this is not one of the bright ideas he has got through some inspiration or during his sleep. 5e is merely indicating his master/s scheme and trying to ma(e it

appear as if it were his own. 3hy this sudden interest in the retirement age of lawyers that e,ists nowhere else in any democratic jurisdiction6 +ieris/ answer is that these lawyers above the age of -$ are unable to advise their clients properly and they are losing cases. 5owever" if one were to ma(e a list of cases decided in his short tenure in the 'upreme &ourt it would not be difficult to list many cases which have been thrown out" not on the basis of legal principles and often not even with a written judgement stating the reasons for the decision" but only because the demands of some parties were against the wishes of the e,ecutive. The advice of +ieris to lawyers has been that they have duties to the nation. That jargon does not belong to law as e,pressed within democratic jurisdictions but that is 1uite familiar terminology of countries where dictatorships prevail. 7or e,ample" within the 'oviet 8nion it was the duty of everyone" including lawyers" to defend the socialist form of government and socialist property. 9f the lawyers were to attempt to safeguard the rights of the individual" that would go against the very ideological foundation of that legal system. +ieris has also been 1uoted as saying that the lawyers should ta(e cases against the government agencies for discussion with those agencies and should not encourage litigants to bring the cases before the courts. This is the new order of things. Naturally" those who would resist this :new legal order/ would be lawyers that have their roots in the common law tradition. 'uch lawyers do not ta(e their instructions on the basis of arbitrary guidelines by anyone" including any chief justice. They do not see the chief justice as anyone more than one among the rest of the members of the 'upreme &ourt" having no more power than those judges. 5aving (nowledge of a tradition and also the (nowledge of how the law has been practiced in better jurisdictions they would be guided only by the law and nothing else. Lawyering is a profession and not a job. 9t is not a job practiced under an employer. Neither the chief justice nor the government is the employers of the lawyers. There may be lawyers who wor( for the government or for companies. The government and the companies can ma(e regulations over those who are employed by them. 5owever" that is limited to such employment. The regulations of a profession must be those which are designed and accepted by the professionals themselves who e,ercise their will through their associations. The professionals should ta(e action relating to those who cannot any longer carry out their obligations through their own disciplinary processes. The clients can resort to such professional bodies if they have grounds to complain about the services that have been rendered to them. There is no basis at all for the chief justice to interfere into this area which belongs to the legal profession itself. 9f the legal profession succumbs to the interference brought about on behalf of the e,ecutive the people of 'ri Lan(a will lose the assistance of an independent legal profession to fight for their rights. 3hat is at sta(e is not merely the rights of the legal profession but the rights of the individual citi2ens of 'ri Lan(a.

The essence of an authoritarian legal system is to displace the central importance of the individual and his or her rights. 9f this core value is lost then the legal system as a whole is lost. The private property and individual rights will become a plaything of the e,ecutive. 9t will not be long before military men themselves will be assigned to the places occupied by judges and lawyers. The people in Myanmar (;urma* are now struggling to rid themselves of the regulations and the personalities imposed on them during the dictatorial regimes and to rebuild an independent legal system. They have had the taste of chief justices and other judges controlled by the e,ecutive and also of military men who occupied the place of the judges. As 'ri Lan(a is now entering that path it would be a good e,ercise for the leadership of the ;ar Association of 'ri Lan(a to visit Myanmar and ta(e a close loo( at the taste of things to come. 9t would be a pity if they were unable to open their eyes now or are indeed" afraid to do so. Erasing of the law" the independent judicial system and the independence of the lawyers is now very much on the agenda in 'ri Lan(a. it all depends now on the capacity of the legal profession to resist and to defend its inherent rights as an independent profession. And what this means to the people as a whole is about their rights as individuals. 3hether they want to be merely a cog in the machine is something they must themselves decide NO3.