Daily Times

Islamabad Bar Council issued a notification calling for a strike on October 24, 2018. The notification refers to a “meeting of the Inter Provincial Bar Councils Relationing Committee [fancy, eh?] of Islamabad Bar Council, Punjab Bar Council, Sindh Bar Council, KP Bar Council, Balochistan Bar Council and AJ&K Bar Council” that was held on 19th October, 2018. Without divulging the details of the meet-up, the notification makes an announcement calling for a strike for “rule of law and independence of judiciary.” Over the years, we have been introduced to assortment of absurd reasons calling for strikes. But I must admit, nothing beats this!

At the cost of repetition, may I again remind the readers, the reason for the strike was, and let this sink in, rule of law and independence of judiciary… a moment of silence!

There is no prohibition on strikes in exceptional circumstances. But there needs to be some nexus, however remote, between the means employed and objective sought. There is no causal link between strikes in general and rule of law. Even mentioning the two in the same breath makes right minded legal practitioners; a majority, uncomfortable. Imagine selling this to Dicey who devoted a significant time of his life, enunciating the principles of rule of law (and independence of judiciary being a subset of rule of law), or Lock for that matter who believed where law ends, tyranny begins. Effectively the Bar Councils, with a call for strike, would obstruct application of law for one complete day, so that people who seek equal protection before law or people who seek declaration that no one is above law, don’t get their day in the courts, only so that the rule of law could prevail.

The notification should have explained the correlation between the means employed and the objective sought. The writer is at a loss to explain or even understand that. Perhaps with the explanation forthcoming, many like the writer of this piece would have learnt new insight into rule of law. Be that as it may, a strike to uphold rule of law, is the new low we have hit!

The Provincial Bar Councils are constituted pursuant to Section 3 of The Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The Provincial Bar Councils are entrusted to, inter alia, admit advocates on their rolls after due process such as examinations and fitness interviews, entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates and prescribe punishment to uphold the dignity of the profession and to promote and suggest law reforms. In the provinces and the centre, Bar Council is an apex body representing lawyers with great roles and responsibilities.  Given what Bar Councils are entrusted to do and what they actually do when they convene an inter-provincial meeting, presents a sorry picture of where the profession stands today.

Our Bar Councils should be mindful of Cannons of Professional Conduct and play a leading role in inculcating a culture of legal ethics, that enables rule of law, rather than promoting and celebrating vukalagardi that damages — lest Bar Associations call for another strike condemning this strike called by the Bar Councils

Bar Councils ought not to be calling for strikes at all! It is not an unreasonable expectation to harbour from a statutory body that makes or is supposed to make determinations into professional misconduct of advocates on its rolls. Who will ask of those elected to Bar Councils, if they are discharging their solemn statutory duties professionally, if they have employed steps ensuring expeditious justice such as curtailing adjournments from lawyers, if they have removed black sheep from the rank and file of black coats either due to misconduct or dubious legal qualifications, if cracks have been sufficiently addressed to regulate entry into the profession; so that the legal profession and the justice project in the country earns respect of an ordinary litigant who has been exposed, and mostly, bruised by our system. No, instead, they convene a meeting and unanimously call for strikes. And for rule of law!

The Pakistan Legal Practitioners & Bar Council Rules, 1976 in its chapter XII provide for Cannons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Advocates. There are four different heads of duties of lawyers: conduct towards other advocates, conduct with regard to clients, duty to the courts and conduct with regards public generally. Under duty to the court, it is mandatory upon an advocate, pursuant to rule 166, to appear in Court, when a matter is called and if it is not possible, then make satisfactory alternative arrangements.  This provision discourages adjournments on behalf of advocates in general and there is no room for strikes under its express mandate, certainly not for frivolous reasons.

Our Bar Councils should be mindful of Cannons of Professional Conduct and play a leading role in inculcating a culture of legal ethics, that enables rule of law, rather than promoting and celebrating vukalagardi that damages – lest Bar Associations call for another strike condemning this strike called by the Bar Councils!

The writer attended Berkeley and is a Barrister of Lincoln’s Inn

Published in Daily Times, October 25^th 2018.