Hearings at the Privy Council concerning a corruption case against a sitting prime minister, elections at the Bar Council, disagreement about the role it should play, the setting up by government of a high-powered steering committee to look into the Mauritius Bar Association Act…the legal profession had never been so much in the news. We talk to Yahia Nazroo, secretary of the Bar Council, about some of these issues.

There is normally a queue for the Bar Council elections and a campaign similar to that of a general election. This time, you don’t even have enough candidates. What exactly is happening to the profession?
When I took office in 2012, candidates were elected on the day of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) by a show of hands. Over the past seven years, there has been a transformation of how people view the Bar Council; the profession has finally realised that a council made up of members who are motivated, have a programme for the association and who will work as a team to ensure that the profession gets the recognition and respect it deserves is what is needed for the profession to prosper. When the 2018-2019 council was elected, it was elected as a team and that team had a manifesto, which culminated in the 3i’s Bar Conference in November. Many assumed that this council would stand for a second term. It didn’t.

Why not?
The profession needs each and every member to give their time, to be dedicated and share their ideas to make the association prosper.

How come there is no queue to make the ‘association prosper’?
There are many young members of the Bar who are very motivated and who no doubt would be sitting on the Bar Council one day to help the association and the profession as a whole move forward positively.

Why aren’t they standing for election today?
Amongst the candidates this year, we have three former presidents of council and three young members of the Bar. Experience and young blood can only result in positive outcomes. It must also be said that this is the first time that there are seven seats to be filled (following recent changes in the law) on the council instead of five so that there is only one seat to be filled at the AGM.

Normally you have at least two candidates for the presidency, sometimes more. What has exactly happened in recent years for the profession to lose interest?
On the contrary, there is a growing interest in the Bar Council, which has created this situation; you don’t become chairman of the Bar Council just because you want to. You need to be ready and fit for the post, which means you need to be ready to forego time with your family and add that 25^th hour in your 24-hour clock. You are called upon to lead the profession with all the dexterity and tact that such a post calls for. Not everyone has the charisma and the ability to do this. So there is no surprise here.

The current council has been marked by an almost open war between the current president and a previous one. As someone who has worked with both as secretary of the Bar Council, where do you stand?
If you are referring to the views expressed by our friend Antoine Domingue in the media, I do not think one should see it as a war between two persons since the views expressed concerned decisions taken by the council and not by the chairman. It was a debate of ideas not a war between individuals. I had the privilege of working with five different presidents on the Bar Council; each one of them had a different approach, a different character and a different personality. That’s what made the Bar Council change into what it is today – a strong governing body, which is highly respected and which is consulted on every important matter that needs attention and discussion. This present council at its very inception stated that it would do things differently; we expected and welcomed the exchange of ideas, opposition to our ideas and discussions about what we wanted to do during our mandate; I am proud and happy to be part of this council, which has created a real sense of belonging for its members as was seen during the 3i’s Bar conference 2018 in November.

The 3i’s formula sounds great but concretely, what has been achieved by the council through it?
This council took things a level higher by introducing new rules under the existing act to make government realise that we were not ready to keep waiting and that self-regulation of the profession is essential. We made rules, we are applying them and we have already taken measures to ensure that members who do not uphold the honour, integrity and respect for the profession are dealt with as severely as they deserve. The conference brought back this sense of appurtenance to the profession. It was attended by about 300 delegates and provided a platform for open and friendly discussions.  Our latest newsletter provided a summary of these interesting discussions. The recent setting up by government of a high-powered steering committee to look into a holistic review of the Mauritius Bar Association Act is therefore no coincidence. The 3i’s Conference has beautifully achieved its objective.

Is this high-powered steering committee likely to help or hinder the work of the Bar Council?
A strong democracy relies on an independent and strong Bar. It will be in the interest of Mauritius and those in power to ensure that the Bar is self-regulated. Any form of interference will be to the detriment of our country. I have no doubt that the committee will work hand in hand with the Bar Council now that it has been constituted. I have taken cognisance of the members who will constitute the committee. A week ago, the chairman of the Bar called for vigilance as we did not know who would sit on the committee. The council was not consulted. I am happy to note that Ravin Chetty will represent members of the Bar. He has been on various Bar Councils and has been helping as a member of the Standards and Ethics Committee of the council for a few years now.

Was he elected by the profession to sit on the committee or nominated by the government?
The council was not consulted in respect of the constitution of this committee. Chetty would have most likely been amongst those names we would have suggested. In any event, I trust that representations will be open to all members of the legal profession and the public at large. I will certainly make representations as a member of the Bar to this committee if I am given the opportunity.

According to some lawyers, the Bar Council is trying to usurp powers it does not have under the law. Do your agree with that assessment?
Whoever holds such a view has not expressed it at the various forums at which this council presented and explained the new rules. A view, which was expressed was that such far reaching changes should be brought into play through changes in the law. This council has in fact been pushing very hard for a change in the law, the only difference is that it was not willing to do nothing until the laws actually change. It is a source of great satisfaction that the government has finally taken the first step towards a holistic review of the legislative set up regulating the legal profession although we would have wished more consultation and collaboration from the attorney general.

The perception of the Bar Council remains that of a toothless puppy. How far have the current members changed that?
Everybody agrees that under the current laws, the council cannot effectively deal with rogue members. We must remember however that under the current laws, the council is not solely responsible for regulating the profession, but it also has a role to play as enforcer of the code of ethics but the attorney general and the Supreme Court also have important roles to play. This council has proved that it is above all a question of attitude. If one is willing to take his responsibilities, however limited they may be under the current law, then one can make the difference; If only to create awareness that the laws need to be reviewed. This is what the outgoing council set out to do.

Shouldn’t we be moving towards a system similar to the one in the UK, where the institution overseeing the ethical conduct of lawyers is different to the one created to protect their interests such as the Bar Council?
This issue has been the subject of discussions within this Council and in previous Councils. There is consensus that we need one body, which is similar to the Bar Standards Board to regulate the conduct of barristers. We however insist that self-regulation is essential. The high powered steering committee will hopefully provide the right form of self-regulation for the profession.

The Bar Council did not take lightly to the fact that the attorney general pulled out of the council where he was automatically vice-chairman. Do you trust that this same attorney general is going to come up with suggestions to give the Bar Council more power?
This is not about the attorney general. Besides, it is only by tradition that he was vice-chairman of the Bar; the law did not provide for such a post to be reserved exclusively for him. This is much more importantly about the legal profession and the future of the Bar. The institution he represented on the council has always provided a means to ensure that the State Law officers were made part of the profession and their views taken into account. Over the years, every council co-opted an officer of the Attorney General’s Office or one from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This committee has the huge task of ensuring that the legal profession has the means to self-regulate itself for the next 20 years. I have absolutely no doubt this committee will do what it takes to promote and ensure that our legal profession grows stronger by giving it the right powers to do so.

There is talk about scrapping the jury system. What is your take on that?
I represented the Bar Council on the Consultative Committee of the Law Reform Commission when it was looking into this matter. We called upon members of the Bar to send their views on the issue but there was a lack of participation, which was disappointing. The council had hoped to organise a debate on the matter but we ran out of time; time flies in a year’s mandate when you have so many things to look at. I would not wish to voice my personal views on this issue at this stage save to say that there are arguments for and against it in a democracy.

Shouldn’t the Bar Council weigh in on issues of this nature?
The Bar Council has always participated in debate on the reform of the laws whenever it has been called. One of its objects under section 3 of the Mauritius Bar Association Act provides under 3 (b) the improvement of the administration of justice in Mauritius and 3 (c) the promotion and support of law reform. You will recall that the Bar Council and members of the Bar Association debated the police criminal and evidence bill, The prosecution commission bill, the good governance and integrity reporting bill to name but a few. It will continue to do so.

For more views and in-depth analysis of current issues, Weekly magazine (Price: Rs 25) or subscribe to Weekly for Rs110 a month. (Free delivery to your doorstep). Email us on: weekly@lexpress.mu