Has the Chamber of Advocates been used?

The judicial protest filed by the Chamber of Advocates last week alleging the State was spying on lawyer-client discussions in prison came as a surprise.

Here was a reputable institution alleging a serious breach of human rights by the State. The chamber went one step further, questioning the “integrity of criminal proceedings that may have been affected by such practices over an extended period”.

The chamber was effectively intimating that criminal proceedings past and pending could be tainted thus casting doubt on the outcome of certain cases.

The organisation was so committed to its stand that even before the State Advocate had filed a counter-reply on behalf of the State and its agencies, the chamber had issued orders to its members not to attend court sittings on Monday.

It has to be noted that communications between lawyers and their clients are protected under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. Interference with these communications could undermine fundamental legal protections and weaken public confidence in the administration of justice. Interfering with this right is wrong and any abuse must be confronted and prosecuted. However, the law does provide avenues through which such grievances can be pursued if a lawyer or a client suspects wrongdoing.

If there potentially was a case of suspected spying on lawyer-client talks, it does not automatically mean that there is an organised system of spying. Making the leap from one case, of which we are not privy to apart from what the chamber indicated in its judicial protest, to an organised system of State spying is too audacious, especially for an otherwise cautious organisation like the Chamber of Advocates.

The State Advocate was correct in accusing the chamber of throwing caution to the wind by raising doubt on the integrity of the judicial system.

And this is the crux of the argument. By raising these doubts, has the chamber unwittingly helped someone’s unscrupulous attempt to scupper the justice system? By making such a bold claim that a State-sponsored wiretapping operation exists in prison, has it played into the hands of someone, who is trying every trick in the book and outside it to delay justice?

In its judicial protest, the chamber argued the matter came to light after it received information earlier this month suggesting that a warrant issued in 2021 authorised the use of surveillance equipment in areas of the prison where inmates meet visitors, including their legal representatives. Why is it that such an allegation is being made now, five years later, and specifically in the month of June?

Let us be clear—wrongdoing remains wrongdoing irrespective of whether it happened now or five years ago. So, if there is a case to answer for, it should be pursued through the legal channels available. But here we have an organisation that has been drawn into a controversy that transcends the singularity of a case.

It is evident for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that whoever complained with the chamber was doing so to draw on the chamber’s credibility and create a situation that can potentially snowball into something more sinister.

The chamber’s own actions, whether legal—the judicial protest—or material—the orders issued to lawyers not to attend court—could be used as the backdrop by unscrupulous lawyers to request postponements of criminal cases their clients are facing. Even worse, is if the chamber’s actions are used to try and plant doubts in the minds of potential jurors about the integrity of the judicial process.

We trust that the chamber’s actions came from a good place—to protect the privileged relationship between lawyers and clients—but unfortunately the council appears to have naively given the benefit of the doubt to those whose tentacles have been trying to undermine the judicial process for years in a bid to evade justice.

This leader would like to be clearer in its words but doing so would go against court decrees handed down several months ago with the intention of protecting the integrity of the justice process. There have been attempts over the past months to tempt us into reporting on matters that would directly contravene these court decrees. We have resisted these temptations because there was no higher public interest at stake but only a pathetic attempt to try and sow confusion by those who have everything to lose if the course of justice is allowed to proceed unhindered.