Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (542)

Bothersome barristers

Ever since its establishment in 1912, the Egyptian Lawyers' Syndicate has made it its business to be a thorn in the government's side, forcing not a few officials to view it as pesky at best. What vexed them so? Professor Yunan Labib Rizk* looks for answers

---

Saad Zaghlul

Mohamed Hussein Heikal

During the closing months of 1933 and well into the following year the Lawyers' Syndicate, called by many the "tiresome" or "nuisance" syndicate, forced itself on the pages of Al-Ahram. It was not that the lawyers were somehow innately different from the practitioners of the other liberal professions. They were not born troublemakers. Rather, we suspect that the "nuisance" phenomenon stems from the intimate relationship between lawyers and the nationalist movement. Ever since civilians assumed the lead of this movement, lawyers always appeared to occupy centre stage. There was Mustafa Kamel, Mohamed Farid and Ahmed Lutfi El-Sayed, the early pioneers and founders of the first nationalist political party. Following the 1919 Revolution more lawyers assumed the limelight in nationalist politics, notably Saad Zaghlul, Abdel-Aziz Fahmi, Mustafa El-Nahhas, Makram Ebeid and Mohamed Hussein Heikal. The 1930s brought a new generation of activists, notably Fathi Radwan, Ahmed Hussein, founder of Misr Al-Fatat, Hassan El-Ashmawi of the Muslim Brotherhood and Aziz Mirham of the left-wing movement -- again, all lawyers.

True, this connection began to weaken considerably in the 1950s and 1960s, in part due to the monopoly on power by the military and in part to the socialist laws that swept the carpet from under the "lawyers' market". However, it picked up in strength again in the 1970s with the reintroduction of multi-party plurality and the economic open-door policy. Fathi Surour and Kamal El-Shazli of the National Democratic Party, Noman Gomaa of the New Wafd Party, Rifaat El-Said, chairman of the Progressive Rally (Tagammu') Party, Diaeddin Dawoud, chairman of the Nasserist Party, Sameh Ashour, current Lawyers' Syndicate chief and Mokhtar Nouh, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, were all trained in law.

This connection between lawyers and the nationalist movement was no accident. The movement's success at rallying support and mobilising the public rested to a large extent on rhetorical skills, at which lawyers more than any other professional group must excel. In addition, nationalist leaders had to engage in lengthy and arduous negotiations with the British, which required both extensive expertise in intricacies of law and a particular acumen at formulating and pleading a case.

The Royal School of Law, later to become the Faculty of Law and one of the cornerstones upon which was founded the National University in 1925, was also instrumental in ensuring that its graduates dominated the government as well as the troublemakers within. Founded in 1868 under the Khedive Ismail as the School of Management and Languages and later renamed in 1886, the School of Law was Egypt's first civilian higher educational academy. The school was created to cater to the sons of the upper class who had the means and connections to advocate their political causes. Although the school eventually opened up to the emerging middle class, politics and the pursuit of political careers remained among the primary goals of its student body, perhaps even until the present day.

Certainly, too, the dense curricula of political science and various branches of law could not have better equipped the students for political life. In a letter to his brother explaining why he wanted to enroll in the school of law, Mustafa Kamel wrote, "This is the school of composition, discourse and the laws of nation." In these brief words the nationalist leader encapsulated how important his and subsequent generations regarded legal training for their prospective political careers.

In view of the above, it was not odd that lawyers would figure so prominently in Egypt's modern history. However, if there is ample testimony to their high profile in politics and the judiciary, much less is known about their role when incorporated into a syndicate. It is unfortunate that Amani Mohamed Kemaleddin's excellent Masters thesis, "The Role of the Lawyers' Syndicate in Egyptian Politics: 1912-1954" has yet to be published, for this work, which she completed 13 years ago, does much to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

The author reveals, firstly, that the Egyptian Lawyers' Syndicate arose following intense pressure by barristers with the national courts, whose ardour was in part fired and sustained by the fact that barristers with the Mixed Courts, most of whom were foreigners, had succeeded in forming a syndicate 30 years earlier. In the course of the campaign, Saad Zaghlul, who at the time was minister of justice and who helped draft the articles of association, appealed to the syndicate movement leaders for moderation. He said, "I am not suggesting that the obstacle to the realisation of this aspiration [the creation of a syndicate] is the lawyers' participation in politics. However, the tone with which they criticise the government is harsh." Zaghlul's observation foreshadowed what was to come.

Kemaleddin also informs us that in 1922 the syndicate refused to take part in the "Committee of 30" that had been formed to draft a new constitution. Instead, it demanded that free elections be held to appoint a national assembly for that purpose, towards which end it issued the following declaration on 2 April of that year:

"Whereas the drafting of the constitution is a right of the people, for theirs are the interests that must be served in designating the form of government, the responsibilities of this government before them and the separation of the diverse powers in order to guarantee freedom and the public welfare; and whereas the people must be represented in this process through a National Assembly created by means of free elections and operating outside of the shadow of martial law and the influence of administrative authorities, the Syndicate Board has resolved to adopt the decision of the President of the Syndicate to refuse to participate in the committee the government has formed to draft a constitution. Any lawyer who participates in this committee does so in his personal capacity and does not represent Egyptian lawyers."

Following the promulgation of the 1923 Constitution, the Lawyers' Syndicate would continue to make a pest of itself. Kemaleddin cites two major instances of this in the 1920s. The first took place following the assassination of British Governor-General of Sudan Sir Lee Stack in 1924 which led to the fall of the Zaghlul cabinet and the dissolution of the majority Wafd Party parliament. On 12 December that year, the syndicate petitioned King Fouad to restore the suspended parliament to enable it to resolve the crisis and, when this went unanswered, it waged an ongoing battle with the Zeiwar government, made up mostly of Liberal Constitutionalist Party leaders, the longtime foes of the Wafd.

The second occasion was in 1928 when the syndicate pitted itself against the "iron fist" government of Mohamed Mahmoud who had suspended the constitution. The syndicate opened fire on 21 July that year when, during a stormy assembly, it issued the following declaration: "The constitution, which was borne of the struggle of the people and which is the fruit of their sacrifices, is not a gift but an eternal right that can brook no encroachment. The cabinet's dissolution of parliament, its suspension of the constitution, its obstruction of the implementation of its provisions and its abuse of the rights of the people is no less than a revolt against the constitution and its provisions, an unjustifiable violation of the fundamental law of the nation and an act that will produce no legally acceptable consequences."

Although the Mahmoud government did everything in its power to silence the syndicate, including a bid to take it over from the inside, the lawyers stood their ground and sustained their resistance until the government was compelled to resign the following year.

Kemaleddin also tackled the role of the Lawyers' Syndicate during the Sidqi era, and specifically during the Abdel-Fattah Yehya government (1933-1934) that marked the closing phase of that era. However, as Al-Ahram was an eyewitness at the time, we will leave my former student's study aside and turn to the pages of our newspaper.

The next confrontation opens on 12 December 1933 when Makram Ebeid and four other Wafdist lawyers staged a walkout from the National Criminals Court during its prosecution of a case, prompting the judge to rule that they be referred to the disciplinary board for a reprimand. Three days later, the General Assembly of the Lawyers' Syndicate nominated Ebeid as syndicate chief and the others to positions on the central board. The government was furious and issued an ultimatum: "If the aforementioned nominees are elected, the government, in order to safeguard the purity of the syndicate's traditions and the dignity of the lawyers themselves from representation by persons unqualified, will find itself compelled to promulgate an act restricting the action referred to above."

Naturally, syndicate members objected to what they regarded as illegitimate government intervention in syndicate elections and a violation of the laws regulating the legal profession. Thus, after issuing a strongly worded protest stressing that "lawyers are more aware than others of the duties and traditions of their profession," they elected the candidates whom the court had sentenced to disciplinary measures. Then, to underscore their point, 1,300 of them attended the celebration the syndicate hosted to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the National Courts, snubbing the reception the Ministry of Justice had organised for the same occasion. Only 20 lawyers attended the latter, most of them members of parliament.

The Yehya government proved true to its word and drafted a bill to amend the National Courts Barristers Law. Spread over four pages in Al-Ahram of 20 April 1934, it was accompanied by an explicatory statement from the Ministry of Justice which revealed the actual objectives of the law.

The statement observed that the existing law, dating from 1912, was too vague on the question of "good repute" as one of the conditions for acceptance into the bar. "It is believed that the law should be more specific on this matter and should stipulate that the applicant to the bar has no record of judicial verdicts or dishonorable disciplinary proceedings, that he be of good repute and that he enjoy the necessary respect for the pursuit of the legal profession."

On the Lawyers' Syndicate, the statement expressed the ministry's dismay at the politicisation of the organisation, adding, "It has shifted its activities from the purely professional concerns to which its work should be restricted to political acts and demonstrations. There is nothing to prevent a lawyer who wishes to engage in politics from doing so and pursuing those means that he believes are the most beneficial to himself and to the welfare of his nation. However, the dignity of the profession requires that the spirit of justice and equality prevail among its practitioners and that they remain above suspicion of bias and partiality. This in turn demands that in his pursuit of the affairs of the syndicate the lawyer must be a lawyer exclusively and that he must not mix his professional work with other purposes however great and lofty he may perceive them."

As was its custom, Al-Ahram opened its pages to the public and relevant experts to offer their opinion. In this case, it solicited the prominent barrister Ahmed Ramzi to furnish an analysis of the proposed bill, an analysis that appeared over five installments.

Ramzi took issue, firstly, with the bill's second article pertaining to good repute and, specifically, the requirement regarding "respect." Such terms, he objects, are not the sort that a lawmaker should include in a law because they are too ambiguous and flexible and this one in particular was of the nature that could prejudice the committee considering a candidate's application for the bar. "It is, therefore, preferable to adhere simply to the notion of good repute so that the law remains above suspicion. In all events, it is impossible for a committee to determine what exactly constitutes the quality of 'respect' in an applicant."

The lawyer then turns to Article 34 which stated, "A lawyer who abuses his duties or dishonours or denigrates his profession through his professional or other conduct shall be liable to the following disciplinary measures: firstly, reprimand; secondly, suspension from practice for a period of no more than two years; and, thirdly, debarment. In addition to such disciplinary measures, the chief justices of the Court of Appeals and preliminary courts and the Syndicate Council may issue cautions." Ramzi took particular exception to the latter clause which he described as "painful" to anyone imbued with the culture and training of a lawyer. "How can an individual be given the right to pass judgment on them?" he asks. "The opinion of an individual, however highly placed, is more vulnerable to error than that of a group. It is our belief that the right to issue caution should be restricted to the disciplinary board, in the event that the offense for which the lawyer is brought before the board merits no more than a caution, and to the Syndicate Council, as stated in the bill."

However, in Ramzi's opinion, Article 35, in all its brevity, was more dangerous. It placed the disciplining of lawyers under the jurisdiction of the Court of Cassations. Under the 1912 law, this jurisdiction had been conferred upon a board consisting of the chief justice of the Court of Appeals, three court of appeals counselors and the head of the Lawyers' Syndicate or a member of the syndicate's Central Committee. Article 35, however, was based on an earlier amendment that transferred the jurisdiction to the Court of Cassations because, as Ramzi put it, "that court had been recently established and because the government that introduced the amendment loathed seeing lawyers represented on the disciplinary board." In Ramzi's opinion, the law should revert to a version of the earlier formula and provide for a disciplinary board consisting of the chief justice of the Court of Cassations, two counselors from that court and lawyers who had been approved by that court to plead before it.

It was not long before the objections aired by lawyers in Al- Ahram, as well as a number of Wafdist newspapers, escalated to pitched battle. The Chicorel Building on Fouad I Street, in which the syndicate had leased premises for a lawyers' club, was the venue for the first protest against the new law. The occasion was the inauguration of the new club to which were invited "a group of prominent figures with lengthy experience in the study and practice of the law." Topping the guest list were Tawfiq Nassim, Mustafa El-Nahhas, Ahmed Khashaba, Mahmoud Abdel-Razeq, Gaafar Wali and Youssef Suleiman. In addition to these legal and political luminaries there were a number of former counselors at law, current counselors for the Court of Cassations and the Court of Appeals, judges from the National Preliminary Court, and the heads of the religious and mixed courts. Naturally, members of the press were also on hand.

Apparently, the speech delivered by syndicate chief Makram Ebeid struck the appropriate chord among all present, to the extent that Al-Ahram dedicated its editorial to it the following day, lauding the "social lessons" it imparted, its "profound substance" and the "delicate" way in which it was worded.

At the same time, quietly and with purpose, a petition was circulating, gathering lawyers' signatures "from Alexandria in the north to Assiut, Qena and Aswan in the south," in protest against the bill of law. According to Al-Ahram, only a handful of lawyers refused to signed.

Suddenly, however, as their campaign was mounting, lawyers were taken by surprise. On 7 July 1934 the Yehya government took the unprecedented decision to dissolve the syndicate's Central Committee and appoint an interim committee consisting of the chief justice of the Court of Appeals, the public prosecutor and a counselor from the court. The stated purpose of the committee was to "safeguard the assets of the syndicate and administer its ordinary expenditures."

The syndicate's Central Committee responded rapidly with a statement refuting the validity of the government decree and asserting that the existing Central Committee that had been elected by the general assembly still stood under the law. It then notified the Bank of Egypt and the National Bank, in which the syndicate accounts were held, not to disburse any money from these accounts to any organisation not authorised by the syndicate, adding, "the money in these accounts which has been deposited in the name of the syndicate is the personal property of the lawyers."

Under the headline, "Lawyers' Crisis," Al-Ahram 's lead article of the following day voiced its regrets over the government action. "Law is a liberal profession and lawyers are free citizens and the purpose of their syndicate is to ensure that the members of their profession are free to choose their representatives," it commented. "There is no apparent reason to compel lawyers to elect a specific individual as their syndicate leader or specific individuals as their delegates on the Central Committee."

In the face of this outcry, the government's next shot was to summon Makram Ebeid and the other members of the Central Committee before the public prosecutor for questioning over their motives for continuing to act in their capacities as syndicate officials in spite of the government decree. Specifically, the prosecutor wanted to know whether, in so doing, they were deliberately defying legislative authorities and whether accounts in the press to the effect that the Central Committee had condemned the royal decree as unconstitutional were accurate.

To the latter, the lawyers responded that the decree was indeed unconstitutional. "It was issued in accordance with Article 41 of the constitution," they argued. "This article stipulates that certain conditions must prevail, such as an emergency or danger, to warrant its application and these conditions did not exist in this case. Furthermore, the resolutions of the syndicate's Central Committee are based on the resolutions of the syndicate's general assembly, and this body holds that the decree invalidating their election results is unconstitutional." With regard to the first allegation, the lawyers denied that they were defying the authority of the law. On the contrary, they held, they fully abided by the constitution. Moreover, the government itself did not act on its decree to invalidate the elections, having "implicitly recognised the persons who had served as the syndicate chief and the members of the Central Committee for the past seven months." As for the press reports, the lawyers denied issuing a statement although they had responded to questions from journalists.

The government was not to be dissuaded from its intention and commenced disciplinary procedures against Ebeid and his colleagues. On 24 July, Al-Ahram published the charges. The lawyers had allegedly "permitted themselves to adopt a stance in accordance with which they refused to recognise the legitimacy of a decision issued by parliament. Such comportment is debasing and degrading to the occupation they profess. Moreover, the Court of Cassations had previously ruled to reprimand them for conduct violating the ethics of their behaviour and they failed to heed this reprimand."

Although the lawyers were obviously to be brought before a disciplinary court again, there was no further news on this for the rest of the summer. On the one hand the courts went into recess and on the other the Yehya government had entered that final downward spiral that would culminate in its resignation on 14 November and the abolition of the constitution of 1930 which had abrogated the 1923 Constitution.

Thus it was not until a new government was formed under Tawfiq Nassim that news of the syndicate crisis resurfaced. Within a week of forming his new cabinet, the new minister of justice declared that the restoration of the 1923 Constitution reinstated the earlier laws and regulations governing the syndicate. However, it was not until 16 December that the government was more explicit. It rescinded the decree invalidating the syndicate elections, the ban against nominating persons who had disciplinary actions brought against them as syndicate chief or members of the Central Committee and the decree dissolving the syndicate's Central Committee.

Al-Ahram rejoiced at the news. The actions had been taken for purely political motives and political party self-interest, it said. "The former government committed an offense against the nation in its attempt to abolish a reputable syndicate, a syndicate that we have always looked to as the platform for expanding organised syndicates to serve the diverse professions. This syndicate has been instrumental in spreading the culture of law and the respect for the law and its practitioners. It has helped lawyers speak with a united word, defended their rights, arbitrated between them in their personal disputes, assisted the judiciary in its appointments of lawyers and lent a munificent helping hand to lawyers in financial straits."

One imagines that these words with which Al-Ahram concluded this chapter in the history of a syndicate that government authorities had found so irksome expressed the sentiments not only of the syndicate members but of all Egyptians at the time.