Legal Practitioners Bill might be back
The Legal Practitioners Bill could finally make a return to Parliament for debate after the Minister of Defence, Justice and Security, Kagiso Mmusi said his office is about to conclude discussions on the proposed review of the legislation.
The Legal Practitioners (Amendments) Bill was previously tabled in 2020 during the winter Parliament session.
However, the Bill was withdrawn to allow the minister to make further consultations. It was rejected by the Law Society of Botswana (LSB) saying it contradicts the agreements the society had with government.
Mmusi told Parliament this week that there were delays to bring back the Legal Practitioners Act (Bill) because of the discussions between the Law Society, Attorney General’s Chambers and the ministry.
The minister pointed out that he is hopeful they will conclude the ongoing discussions soon, with a view to bring back the Bill to Parliament.
“I believe that we would have wrapped up the matter in a week, to enable us to bring it back to Parliament. We wanted to bring it back when all concerned parties are in agreement on all issues. I didn’t want to bring it back when there were pending issues between the concerned parties,” said Mmusi.
When the proposed amendment Bill was previously brought to Parliament, the LSB, whose members rejected it terming it “regressive”.
Mmusi stated that amongst other areas that the Bill will address is the legibility of foreign advocates to practice in Botswana.
At the time of the withdrawal, the Society argued that the Bill was not ready to be presented to Parliament as it omitted some of the central themes suggested for the transformation of the legal fraternity.
The Society also pointed out that some of the key areas of change, which it had envisaged to be included following extensive discussions, were the provision for the incorporation of law firms and the payment of subscriptions by legal practitioners and the Attorney General who are members of the Society.
Other suggestions included taking away the privilege of persons employed in government entities to appear before the courts, improving standards of practice and restricting the routine admission of foreign advocates on ad hoc basis.
According to LSB, the incorporation of legal practices is important as it makes it much easier for lawyers to run their legal practices like businesses. It also allows lawyers the use of their practices to raise finance for expansion, from financial institutions and to build much larger practices than it is currently the case.
The LSB further said there is no reason why legal practitioners employed by government should not contribute to the regulation and administration of the profession.
“Legal practitioners at the Attorney General are currently members of the Society but do not pay any subscriptions. The result is that the Society is under funded and is therefore, unable to competently discharge some of its statutory obligations such as compliance by legal practitioners with the Financial Intelligence Agency,” the LSB had previously argued.
The Society further argued that in professions such as nursing, engineering and architecture, there is no disparity in treatment between those in private practice and those working for government.
“Apart from the fact that the Bill fails to meet the Society’s minimum expectations, it is generally very poorly drafted. There is complete incompatibility between the Bill and the memorandum,” said LSB.
“The memorandum identifies as one of the objects of the Bill the abolition of the exemption from paying subscriptions that government attorneys currently enjoy, yet the Bill retains the exemption.”
LSB further said the Bill is regressive in making judges of the Industrial Court and the High Court members of the Law Society.