Moroccan Lawyers Remain Firm in Their Protest Against New Legislation
In a decisive meeting held on Tuesday, the Board of the Moroccan Association of Lawyers has reaffirmed its stance to continue the suspension of professional services, following a ruling from the Constitutional Court. This ruling declared that it was unable to decide on the constitutionality of the proposed law regulating the legal profession, which lawyers argue is unconstitutional. The association has scheduled a meeting of its council, akin to a parliamentary gathering, for September 4th to discuss further actions.
According to information obtained from the online newspaper Hespress, this decision follows a recent ruling from the Constitutional Court that emphasized procedural errors in the legislative process. Aziz Rouibah, the president of the Rabat Bar Association, confirmed that the board agreed to maintain the previous decision regarding the cessation of professional services. He added that the council of the association will convene in early September to assess the situation.
In response to inquiries regarding the recent court decision, Rouibah stated that it reiterated the lawyers' concerns about the legislative framework, indicating that the lawmaker did not appropriately regulate the issues at hand as required by the constitution. He pointed out that the procedural failings by the Speaker of the House of Representatives directly contributed to the court's inability to rule on the law's constitutionality. Furthermore, he emphasized that the lack of a ruling does not negate the existence of serious constitutional concerns surrounding the proposed law, which contradicts international agreements, especially the Havana Declaration.
Rouibah assured that the lawyers' association will announce additional protest measures soon, maintaining that the board's meetings will remain ongoing to discuss the implications of this situation. On August 11, the Constitutional Court declared its incapacity to rule on the referral seeking to verify the conformity of Law No. 66.23, which pertains to the organization of the legal profession, with the constitution. The court specified that the referral from the Speaker of the House of Representatives was insufficiently supported by necessary documentation, including the law as approved by the House in its second reading.
In previous statements, the association has held the Speaker of the House responsible for the legislative impasse, arguing that the nature of the procedural error preventing the court from proceeding with its review represents more than a mere oversight, given the complexities involved in constitutional procedures and the institutional responsibilities for submitting the text for review.
As reported by hespress.com.
