Deputy Speaker and Deputy President, the Commonwealth principles on the three branches of government relating to the independence of the judiciary, and to which South Africa is a signatory, states that, and I quote:
An independent, effective and competent legal profession is fundamental to the upholding of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
One of South Africa's most well-known advocates practising in London, Sydney Kentridge, stated that there are few things as essential to the maintenance of liberty in a state as the existence of an independent body of advocates, ready to appear for every person in every kind of case.
To protect this independence, governance and the management of the legal profession may not be done by the state. The Minister may only provide the statutory framework within which the legal profession is to be regulated. Hon Minister Radebe is on record as saying that he does not wish to control the profession. That we in the ACDP accept. However, as chairman Llewellyn Landers is often at pains to explain, we legislate for the future, for that unknown time when there might be another dictatorial Minister in control.
Therefore, the possibility of ministerial interference most definitely exists when one adds up the various powers that the Minister is given in terms of this Bill, including making regulations on a broad range of issues, having three ministerial representatives on the council and, most importantly, the power to dissolve it, albeit following a court process.
As former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson said last year about the Bill - just before his death:
A structure is being proposed which opens the door to important aspects of the profession being controlled by the executive and that is inconsistent with an independent legal profession.
Additionally, although I am an attorney, I share the hon Dene Smuts' concerns that the advocates' profession will now become the junior partner in this statutory arrangement and, in effect, the advocates have been sold down the tubes. No one can deny that there are fundamental differences between the attorneys' and advocates' professions. That is why we argued for separate Chambers for attorneys and advocates at national level. Regrettably, this was not agreed upon. As the hon Smuts has pointed out, we clearly have fusion by stealth.
Whilst the ACDP's fall-back position of separate Chambers at provincial level was agreed to to a certain degree, we still support the separate Chambers at national and regional level. The ANC has argued that to agree to that position would be to retain the status quo. Clearly, we in the ACDP respectfully disagree. These separate Chambers would have been subject to the directives of the Legal Practice Council. There is no situation that it is business as usual. The status quo is different and changed.
The ACDP also objected to the lack of parity on the Legal Practice Council. The interim national forum has an equal number of advocates and attorneys represented. We don't understand why this parity was not extended to the Legal Practice Council. Again, the advocates have been sold down the tubes.
The ACDP will not support this Bill. I thank you. [Time expired.] [Applause.]