In a lengthy final statement issued Friday evening, the Association first sought to reframe the debate. It said that “the unprecedented tensions that accompanied the drafting process of the law governing the profession do not constitute a conflict between lawyers and the state, nor a confrontation with it or its institutions,” with the legal profession being “a fundamental component of the state and the judicial system.”
Recalling that “lawyers have always been at the forefront of defending the causes of the Nation, its territorial integrity and its constants” within international organizations, the Bar reaffirmed that it has remained “an essential partner in building the justice system and serving litigants,” working with “selflessness and dedication.” This commitment, it said, is in line with the Royal Vision emphasizing “the centrality of justice and the independence of its components, as well as the need to safeguard the rights of the defense and guarantee a fair trial.”
Read also : Rabat bar chief vows to fight ‘unjust’ lawyers’ law
ABAM then stressed that “the battle being waged today by the legal profession is neither a corporatist battle nor a defense of professional privileges.” For the Association, it is “a battle for the defense mission within the rule of law, and for citizens’ right to a free, strong and independent legal profession, capable of maintaining balance within the judicial system, protecting rights and freedoms, guaranteeing equality before the law” and “opposing anything that could undermine the guarantees of a fair trial.”
In this regard, Morocco’s 17 bar associations view this struggle as a response “to legislative hegemony and to legislation tailor-made to serve particular interests and a vision held by those who are disturbed by a strong, free and independent legal profession,” seeing its law “only as an instrument of control and supervision.”
On the substance of the legislation, the Association notes that the law governing the profession comes in a legislative context that has sparked widespread opposition. These provisions “undermine the independence of the legal profession, its self-regulation and the immunity of the defense, and run counter to constitutional and human rights gains,” as well as international principles governing the practice of the profession.
But the source of concern “lay not only in the provisions of the law, but also in the method that guided the drafting process.” Lawyers explained that the agreements proposed during the institutional dialogue “were not fully incorporated into the text, resulting in the adoption of a law rejected by the professional institutions.” This development raises a fundamental question: “How can a genuine reform of a judicial profession be built without the involvement of its members and against the will of its elected institutions?”
The statement then turns to the constitutional aspect: the referral of the text to the Constitutional Court, followed by the court’s inability to rule because the conditions for bringing the case had not been met, and the failure to rectify the situation, “heightened the gravity” of the situation.
For the lawyers, “the matter goes beyond the law governing the legal profession alone, as it affects confidence in the regularity of constitutional procedures and in the effectiveness of constitutional review of laws.” The Association therefore openly questions the circumstances under which the case was brought, the failure to rectify the situation after the court’s decision, and the manner in which the law nevertheless proceeded to publication and implementation.
For ABAM, respect for the Constitution requires “shedding full light on what happened,” so as to prevent “constitutional procedures from becoming a field for political maneuvering or the imposition of a fait accompli.”
Read also : Morocco: Controversial lawyers’ law gazetted as nationwide strike nears 100 days
In addition, the Association’s bureau considers it impossible to “separate the harm caused [by the law] to the status of former bar presidents, who constitute the living memory of the profession as well as the custodians of its practices, traditions and accumulated experience.” ABAM presents itself as an institution built by generations of lawyers who have upheld the unity of the profession and the independence of its decisions.
In conclusion, the Association reaffirmed its determination to continue “the battle of the legal profession with a view to repealing this law.” It intends to use “all legitimate institutional and legal means,” while “diversifying and developing forms of protest.”
Calling for the opening of “a responsible institutional debate” on the constitutional issue and the determination of political responsibility, ABAM has ordered the complete cessation of professional services. A meeting has been scheduled for September 10 to draw up the program for this new phase, followed that same day by a press conference.
