There are fears among senior lawyers that the Bar Council may be inundated by lawyers with political agenda in the event Section 46A is dropped from the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA).

Lawyer Rasamani Kadiah told malaysiakini that the legal provision which disqualifies junior lawyers and politicians from being elected into the Bar Council is necessary to ensure that the body is free from any outside interest.

"We do not want the council to be led by inexperienced lawyers and those with political interests. I feel this is very dangerous for the development of the profession," she said when contacted today.

The lawyer was expressing her views on the "Repeal Section 46" campaign which will be launched on Sept 5 to garner support from lawyers and the public to have Section 46A removed from the LPA on the ground that it is unconstitutional.

Why 7-year condition necessary

"I feel it is also necessary to impose the seven-year condition because the profession is now more complicated and senior members will be more adequate in carrying the responsibilities," she said.

She disagreed that the rule is unfair to the junior lawyers who represent 75 percent of the 10,500 Malaysian Bar members stating that the young lawyers have never been prevented from raising their concerns to the council.

"Anway, they are fortunate as well to be given the avenue to be heard in the council through the young lawyers committee which now exists at all state levels."

Further, she added, the council has never been unfair to the junior lawyers.

Industrial law expert P Kuppusamy said while he has no strong objections against the campaign, he is doubtful if junior council members are able to earn the respect from members of the judiciary and the public.

"I think it might be difficult for them as council members usually have to deal with senior government and judicial officials. I think the seven-year rule will give them the chance to learn the ropes before they actually get to play a more prominent role in the Bar Council," he said.

Like Rasamani, he felt that the junior lawyers should work through the young lawyers committee which allows them to organise some of the council's programmes.

Aimed at Karpal

Another senior lawyer Karpal Singh disagreed with the two stating that lawyers and the public should support the campaign as Section 46 undermines the right to equality.

Recalling how the amendment was made in 1978, Karpal who is also DAP deputy chairperson said it was obvious that the provisions was meant to curb the council from taking effective steps on legal issues.

"I believed it was aimed at me. The Bar had boycotted all the Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975 (Escar) after it passed a resolution which I had proposed that all practitioners declined representing any accused tried under Escar - which we said to be a draconian law."

"I made the proposal after a 14-year old boy - whom I defended - was sentenced to death for an arms possession charge under Escar. Juvenile laws are not applicable for those accused under Escar The DAP then went on a signature campaign which led the King to commute the death sentence and sent the boy to the Henry Gurney School."

It was after the incident that the government made the amendment, he said, adding that the amendment had disqualified his council membership as he was also the Alor Star state assemblyperon then.

"The council should be free from all those restrictions. Every members should be allowed to be in the council irrespective of political views and experience," he said,

Zulkifli Nordin, a lawyer of 15 years, lauded the campaign stating that the restrictions should not be allowed to remain in the LPA.

"Lawyers represent all levels of society. Young lawyers usually have a lot of ideas and they are always in touch with the people on the ground, so why should we prevent from being council members," he said.

"The same goes against politicians who also represent the people. Lawyers are expected to rise to the occasion when there is a problem among the people, if you shun them, how will you get the input about the people's feelings."

He said that the campaign should not be linked to any court cases, either pending or settled as it is aimed to pressure the legislators to repel the law.

"We are not commenting on the cases but rather raising concerns from people on the issue."

One-third quorum issue

Malaysia legal doyen Mike Wrigglesworth said that while he supports the campaign he feels that there are more important issues to address.

"I think the provision which requires the one-third quorum to be fulfilled to start an AGM or EGM is more pressing than Section 46A."

"The law was introduced for political purposes which is to make it difficult for us to criticise the government. For example, the council will be holding an EGM to discuss of the recent judicial appointments and we are required to gather more than 3,000 lawyers to start the meeting. This is ridiculous!"

He also felt that the campaign may not be fruitful and instead of convincing the public of the unfairness of the provision, he suggested that the junior lawyers approach the relevant authorities like the minister in the prime minister's department and the attorney general to get their support to amend the law.