Mr Speaker, Deputy President, hon members, today we, as a nation, stand at the threshold of the complete renewal of the South African legal system, a system that will not only be anchored in the rule of law and democratic values and principles enshrined in our Constitution, but also in those embraced by all people of our beloved land.
The legal profession has always been a tightly regulated profession because it operates in a much regulated space. What to do, how to do it and when to do it is regulated by different forms of legislation and prescripts, including the Admission of Advocates Act, the Attorneys Act, rules of court made by the Rules Board for Courts of Law, practice directives made by Judges President, and rules made by the Bar Councils and other statutory bodies.
Different role-players, including our government, will and must therefore always have a right to have their say on how people go about their business in our courts and conduct their profession in a public space in the pursuit of justice for all. The legal profession not only operates in its own space, but also operates in a space where all people, rich and poor, converge in pursuit of justice.
The roles of government and that of the profession must be seen against this backdrop, with particular reference to government's legitimate interest to ensure that constitutional imperatives are complied with. Transformation of the legal profession is one of these constitutional imperatives. The legal profession constitutes part of the judicial machinery that provides services aimed at promoting access to justice.
Advocates and attorneys are different in many respects, just as they are similar in many respects. They belong to different regulatory bodies, some statutorily entrenched, for instance, the provincial law societies regulating attorneys, and some voluntary, like the General Council of the Bar of SA and the Law Society of SA. They undergo different vocational training programmes, compulsory in the case of attorneys, but voluntary in the case of advocates. They prefer different names, titles, and status, some entitling the bearers thereof to higher fees for the same services. They charge different fees and use different methods to recover the fees, attorneys directly from clients, some advocates through attorneys and some through direct charges.
Yet, they all have exactly the same academic qualifications. They can appear in the same courts and represent the same people before the same magistrates and the same judges.
The premise for the regulation of the profession stems from our Constitution, which enjoins the state to regulate any occupation, trade or profession. The Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen the right to choose any trade or occupation or profession freely and entrusts to this democratic Parliament the legislative authority to make laws for the regulation of such trade, occupation or profession.
Democratic principles that should govern the legal profession are geared to ensure that our people not only blindly contribute to the revenue of those who represent them, but also have a voice in the policies and practices that affects their lives.
The Legal Practice Bill has a long history - a history that has been characterised by compromises and concessions in order to get us where we are today. One of the original aims of this long outstanding legislation was to bring about fusion in the legal profession that would result in a single category of legal practitioners which no longer distinguishes between attorneys and advocates.
This Bill before Parliament today was adapted to accommodate the urgent pleas of the profession to retain the attorneys' and advocates' professions as distinct categories of legal practitioners, each continuing to provide the legal services traditionally rendered by each of them.
Hon members, lessons from our painful past are important in shaping the future envisioned by our Constitution. The intolerable suffering endured by our legal stalwarts describes the history of what has become known as a noble profession made up of learned friends. The agonizing experiences of Duma Nokwe, the first black advocate to be admitted to the Johannesburg Bar, and those of Bram Fischer sum up what life was like in the advocates' profession under apartheid rule.
The somewhat fearless fight put up by the Johannesburg Bar in 1956 to allow Bram Fisher to have chambers in Johannesburg fell on deaf ears as the government of the day refused bluntly to accede to the request. Ironically, a decade later the same Bar moved for Bram Fisher to be struck off the roll for his involvement in the struggle for justice and freedom.
The humiliation and anguish endured by our iconic statesman, President Nelson Mandela, and one of our greatest leaders, Oliver Tambo, who opened their legal practice in Chancellor House in downtown Johannesburg, mirrors the hardship of an African attorney at that time. The Transvaal Law Society moved for Nelson Mandela to be struck off the roll, which application was turned down by the Supreme Court.
It was through a combination of the oppressive policies of the government of the day and the ill-fated policies of the profession that lawyers of the generation of Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Duma Nokwe, Bram Fischer, Griffiths and Victoria Mxenge and others were deprived of the opportunity to practise their profession freely. The practitioners of yesterday did not have the protection of the rule of law, and some members of the judiciary were also against them. The lack of the rule of law and the system of rule by law made the acts of the apartheid government legitimate in the eyes of the so-called law then.
We tell these unpleasant stories of our past because we want to learn from our past in order to strive for a perfect future. The enactment of this Bill provides the opportunity to redeem our past - sad as it was - and lays a firm foundation for a promising future for advocates and attorneys.
The enactment of this Bill carries with it the hopes and aspirations of many of our people on either side of the court yard. On the one side, the Bill extends to legal practitioners and aspirant jurists, whose unrelenting desire to be freed from the shackles of apartheid has been a long, drawn- out journey with several stop streets towards the opportunity to become true agents of the rule of law. On the other hand, it brings hope to millions of our people whose quest for true justice is beyond measure.
This Bill advances the transformation goal of our Constitution and complements the institutional reforms already introduced into our system by the Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act and the Superior Courts Act. These triple Acts, all of which took time to find their way into this democratic Parliament, collectively seek to enhance access to justice, strengthen the independence of the judiciary and safeguard the rule of law, which underpins our constitutional democracy.
As we begin the countdown to our fifth general elections and the celebration of 20 years of our constitutional democracy, we must also take stock of the gains we have made in our transition from a turbulent apartheid past to a stable constitutional democracy. The enactment of all these Bills before Parliament adds to this successful transition. As we forge ahead as a nation, we remain resolute that the rule of law is an indispensable bulwark of our constitutional democracy and a fortress of our independent judiciary during this period of transition and beyond.
The National Development Plan, NDP, our plan, articulates a very clear programme to create full employment, eliminate poverty and significantly reduce inequality. In respect of the legal profession, the National Development Plan advocates measures aimed at increasing the intake of female practitioners within the legal profession. I'm certain government and the legal profession will, within the space provided by the NDP, work together for the common good of the nation.
The idea of a consultative forum signifies a fundamental breakthrough in addressing contentious aspects of this Bill. The Bill is still not a consensus Bill in all respects. Complete consensus became impossible and this is borne out by almost 20 years of negotiations. Now we have reached the stage where we simply have to forge ahead.
It is in this context that I want to thank all statutory and organised formations in the legal profession for remaining part of these deliberations to this end. I wish to mention the General Council of the Bar, all other Bars, independent statutory law bodies, Nadel - to whom I'm very grateful for giving me employment in my earlier career in law - the Black Lawyers Association, and Advocates for Transformation.
In conclusion, I want to thank the chairperson of the portfolio committee and all fellow members for their guidance and sterling leadership in navigating this Bill; the director-general for providing technical support; and, of course, Deputy Minister Jeffery who played an important role in harnessing the objectives of this Bill.
I trust that this House will support this Bill, which has been a long time coming. Thank you. [Applause].