The Legal Practice Bill proposes the creation of a state-controlled legal practice council and has been pilloried by practitioners signalling the demise of independent legal institutions.
But the attacks were recently strongly countered by ministers. The bill’s critics are wrong to suggest it will compromise the independence of legal practitioners, Department of Justice official JB Skosana told Parliament in Cape Town yesterday.

Scathing attack

His defence of the proposed legislation followed a scathing attack by Jeremy Gauntlett -- former chairman of the Cape Bar and of the General Council of the Bar of South Africa, and vice-president of the Bar for the International Criminal Court – who told South African web site BusinessDay the bill was ‘the biggest single threat to an independent legal profession, and so too the courts, in South Africa’s legal history’.
Mr Skosana told the justice committee that will deal with the legislation that the negative responses took no account of concessions made by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe. ‘We do not find anything opposed to law; on the contrary we believe the bill will strengthen the rule of law,’ Mr Skosana said.
According to the report, one of the main concessions was to allow for the creation of a transitional council that would be funded by the state for two years to assist with the legal profession reforms. Mr Skosana, also said the proposed oversight body, the South Africa legal practice council, would in part be appointed by the minister, who would also have the power to dissolve it.

Last-minute addition

According to South African web site Sowetan, Lawrence Bassett, a state law adviser on the bill said the dissolution clause had been a last-minute addition. ‘It was a new provision put in right at the end of the process. It has given rise to concerns which are understandable. But the question arises: shouldn't there be such a provision? We might need to debate it some more.’
Democratic Alliance MP Dene Smuts and her counterpart in the African Christian Democratic Party, Steve Swart, suggested that the concessions in the latest bill – which has been 15 years in the making -- must be considered in detail. But a particular worry for MPs sitting on the justice and constitutional development portfolio committee was the power the bill grants the minister over the affairs of lawyers. For instance, an independent ombudsman would be appointed by the president after consultation with the council.
Mr Swart said: ‘I am concerned about the minister's control of the whole profession as we see with the dissolution of the council. The whole issue [the council and the ombudsman] should be under the judiciary rather than the political minister.’
Democratic Alliance MP Debbie Schaffer added: ‘Having the ombudsman being appointed by the president does not inspire much confidence that it's independent’.