HIBAPRESS – A. Mahyaoui
The recent legislative elections have resulted in 18 lawyers ascending to the House of Representatives, a scene that reintroduces the presence of those in the black suit to the forefront of the legislative institution. This places a special responsibility on this legal elite to defend the profession's causes, not only from a professional affiliation standpoint but also from within constitutional institutions and the mechanisms of legislation and oversight.
This parliamentary presence comes at a highly sensitive time for the legal profession, as Bill No. 66.23 concerning the organization of the profession has become one of the most debated files between lawyers and the Ministry of Justice. Its legislative path was accompanied by professional protests and a suspension of services before the bill reached advanced stages within the legislative institution and was referred to the Constitutional Court.
The new parliamentary representation of lawyers is distributed across several bodies, reflecting a diverse professional, geographical, and party presence. However, the real challenge will not be tied to the number of seats but rather to the extent of these representatives' ability to coordinate on issues that transcend party affiliations, primarily the independence of the profession, self-regulation, access conditions, training, and the relationship with the supervisory governmental authority.
Parliament does not grant parliamentary lawyers direct authority over the Ministry of Justice, but it provides them with effective constitutional and legislative tools, such as discussing draft laws, proposing laws, directing oral and written questions, participating in the work of standing committees, and holding the government accountable for public policies related to justice and legal and judicial professions.
These tools are of particular importance in light of the path of the draft law on the legal profession during the previous term, as the House of Representatives approved the bill in a second reading, after opposition attempts to return it to the Justice and Legislation Committee failed, before it was referred to the Constitutional Court.
In contrast, the Association of Bar Associations in Morocco expressed its objection to several provisions of the bill at various stages of this process, linking its positions to issues it said affect the profession's independence, self-regulation, and its status within the justice system.
Therefore, the mission of the 18 lawyers within Parliament appears to be more than just an additional professional representation; it is a test of the legal elite's ability to transition from a position of protest and professional defense to one of legislation, decision-making, and institutional oversight.
The question that arises today is not only: Can the parliamentary lawyers "brake" the Ministry of Justice? But also: Will they be able to build a professional coordination that transcends party affiliations, transform stalled files into calm institutional debate, and propose amendments and solutions that respond to the demands of lawyers while simultaneously preserving the requirements for reforming the justice system?
Between the logic of the majority and the opposition, and the logic of professional affiliation, these parliamentarians will face a delicate test: Will the black suit inside the dome of Parliament be merely a professional title, or will it transform into a weighty legislative voice in the debate about the future of the legal profession?
