Heated Debate Erupts in Moroccan Parliament Over Draft Law on Legal Profession

A recent session of the Justice, Legislation, and Human Rights Committee in the Moroccan House of Representatives was marked by a sharp exchange between parliamentarians and the Minister of Justice, Abdellatif Ouahbi, concerning draft law No. 66.23, which aims to regulate the legal profession. The debate, particularly around Article 77, revealed deep-seated concerns among lawmakers, many of whom are practicing lawyers, about the potential impact on the independence and integrity of the legal profession.

“

Leave me out of it. Don't use me as an example. Respect me and say what you want.

Minister Ouahbi urged the parliamentarians to refrain from citing his personal career as a lawyer as a basis for their arguments, requesting a more objective discussion. However, the crux of the contention lies in Article 77, specifically its fourth paragraph. This section proposes that the court should prepare a separate report on any instances of insults, defamation, or disruption of court proceedings, and forward it to the Bar Association president and the public prosecutor for appropriate legal action.

“

This draft law affects the immunity and independence of the lawyer, especially if Article 77 is considered, which opens the door to interpreting the phrase 'disruption of the normal conduct of the session.'

Several lawmakers, including Chafika Lachraf, Lubna Es-Soghayri, and Fatna Ben Azza, voiced strong objections. They argued that the current wording of Article 77, particularly the phrase 'disruption of the normal conduct of the session,' is too broad and could be interpreted in ways that stifle a lawyer's ability to passionately defend their clients. Lachraf warned that such provisions could turn lawyers into 'robots,' limiting their ability to fully engage in their defense arguments. Es-Soghayri echoed this sentiment, stating that lawyers might become fearful, constantly weighing their words, which would 'kill the boldness of lawyers.' Ben Azza further pointed out that while defamation has clear legal definitions, the 'disruption' clause remains vague and could be misused.

“

The lawyer will become fearful and will try to weigh his words during his pleading in court, and this trend kills the boldness of lawyers.

Mohamed Sabbari and Rabia Bouja also raised critical points. Sabbari highlighted that defamation within court sessions is already addressed by the penal code, and the 'disruption' clause is too loosely defined. Bouja questioned the necessity of focusing on such clauses without statistical evidence of widespread misconduct by lawyers during sessions, suggesting a rephrasing of the article. The overarching concern from the Moroccan perspective is that while regulating the profession is necessary, the proposed measures in Article 77 could inadvertently erode the fundamental right to a robust defense and the essential independence that Moroccan lawyers require to effectively represent their clients. This debate reflects a broader tension between ensuring order in judicial proceedings and safeguarding the essential freedoms of the legal defense.

“

The elements of insult remain clear, while the content of Article 77 of the draft law remains unsound.