اخبار المغرب – وطن نيوز
اخر اخبار المغرب اليوم – اخبار المغرب العاجلة
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-07-16 07:00:00
Lawyer Mohamed Al-Heini, a member of the Rabat Bar Association, confirmed that the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ referral of Law No. 66.23 regulating the legal profession to the Constitutional Court is a pioneering constitutional step that will end professional tension and resort to constitutional justice as a safety valve for the state of right and law. In an article published by Hespress, the expert in the field of law presented a set of aspects that he considered unconstitutional in the law regulating the legal profession. Constitutional defects in the law of the profession Among the constitutional defects in the law of the legal profession, according to Lawyer Al-Heini, which affect the constitution and the legal security of citizens and lawyers, is Article 11, saying: “If the governmental authority in charge of justice has the authority to regulate the entry competition to the institute as a public authority, then the principle of self-regulation of the legal profession is constitutionally based on the independence of the legal profession as an essential part and component of the judicial authority, subject to the rules of the judicial authority itself in terms of organizational independence contained in Chapter 107 of The Constitution, and the constitutionality of the right to defense as enshrined in Chapter 120 of the Constitution can only be imagined within the framework of the legal profession as it is a free and independent profession that enjoys self-regulation in accordance with Articles 71, 154 and 159 of the Constitution,” stressing that organizing the entrance competition to the Institute in the absence of any coordination, consultation or participation of the lawyers’ bodies, affects the independence of the profession and its self-regulation and makes the article in its form contrary to the Constitution. Al-Heini also referred to Article 13, highlighting that the provision for an evaluation test by the governmental authority in charge of justice for employees of the clerks’ body who belong to the framework of judicial delegates of at least the first degree, “is considered a violation of the rules of entitlement and transparency as constitutional foundations, because the principle of access to all public jobs or the professions that branch out from them in public services, such as the legal profession, is to organize a competition or exam for which everyone is subject to judgment to choose the best talents and competencies, while organizing an evaluation is only subject to For opinions that may be unfair, tainted by personal relationships and loyalties, and not based on an objective control.” Fees for involvement and partnership between bodies. The same lawyer recorded in his article that other unconstitutional aspects appear in this document referred to the court, namely Article 18; This is because specifying the duty to engage in a reference ceiling without prior consultation with the lawyers’ bodies is tainted by a lack of clarity and ambiguity in the legislation, because it contradicts the first paragraph by its determination by the lawyers’ bodies, in addition to neglecting any participatory approach in determining the reference ceiling violates the rules of the profession’s independence and self-regulation, which makes the article a violation of the constitution. In addition, Article 26, in turn, contains a constitutional flaw. Organizing a partnership between two different offices, each of which is affiliated with a different body, is considered a violation of the independence of each law firm’s work and its subjection to the oversight of its affiliated body of lawyers. It also encourages monopoly, undermines freedom of competition, and linking responsibility to accountability as constitutional foundations. Therefore, such an organization is considered tainted by a lack of clarity and ambiguity in the organization, by not specifying the responsibilities and the role of each body in monitoring, as well as the Public Prosecution or the competent court, concluding that this article is in violation of the Constitution. Al-Heini stated that Article 38, in turn, is unconstitutional, considering that excluding lawyers from representation in some cases is a constitutional violation, because the right to defense is absolute and cannot be subject to any exception in accordance with Chapter 120 of the Constitution, as long as the constitutional legislator established legal and judicial assistance for those who do not have an income in Chapter 121 of the Constitution, and therefore excluding any case from lawyer representation is contrary to the Constitution. Financial oversight of professional bodies. The legal researcher also did not hide the existence of defects related to financial oversight that sparked widespread controversy among lawyers. According to him, Article 76 is considered the most controversial constitutional article “because the finances of lawyers’ bodies are private, not public, and no private body can be subjected to the supervision of the Supreme Council of Accounts as long as the legislator, in Chapter 147 of the Constitution, considered it the supreme body for monitoring public finances in the Kingdom, and it exercises the mission of strengthening and protecting the principles and values of good governance, transparency, and accountability for the state and public agencies.” He added, “As long as the Council’s oversight is linked to the finances of the state and public agencies, considering that the bodies of lawyers are private bodies and their finances are private, they cannot accordingly be subjected to any oversight by the Council, because such oversight of private persons has no basis in the Constitution, and is considered a legislative deviation, since the relations between the various authorities are regulated in accordance with the chapters of the Constitution, and the Supreme Council of Accounts only exercises its jurisdiction within the scope of the Constitution and its provisions, and there is nothing in it that authorizes it to monitor private bodies and persons, and therefore this text is considered inconsistent.” “For the constitution.” He pointed out in this regard that the Moroccan Constitutional Court had previously, in a comparative context, prevented the standing committees of the two chambers of Parliament from having the power to summon any private person to listen to him, and considered that “the relations between the various authorities are regulated in accordance with the chapters of the Constitution, and that the standing committees of the two chambers of Parliament do not exercise their powers except within the scope of the provisions of the Constitution and the regulatory laws, as is the case in Chapter 102 thereof, which restricted the request for the hearing of these committees to officials of public administrations, institutions and enterprises, in the presence of the ministers concerned, and under the supervision of Their responsibility.” Defense Immunity Lawyer Al-Heini explained that Article 77, in turn, is considered a violation of the Constitution, as he considered that setting a percentage for the deduction from a lawyer’s fees not to exceed 10 percent violates the principle of freedom, independence, and self-regulation of the profession and the principle of professional social protection constitutionally enshrined in Chapter 31 of the Constitution, because determining the percentage must be subject to the will of lawyers and their councils, especially since it deeply affects the solidarity, retirement, and solidarity projects in which the profession has made great strides. He stated that Article 78 falls within defense immunity, which includes all the principles of the lawyer’s profession, including freedom, independence, and dignity, and is the constitutional foundation contained in Chapter 120 of the Constitution as the basic guarantee of a fair trial, the rules of the proper administration of justice, and the protection of the rights of litigants. It was recorded that this article raises a constitutional debate regarding the wording of its fourth paragraph, which was characterized by generality and absoluteness regarding determining session violations for the lawyer. The independence of training from the Ministry of Justice. The editor of the article considered that training must remain independent of the executive authority represented by the Ministry of Justice, since Article 85 is considered unconstitutional according to him, stressing that the law institute must be affiliated with the councils of lawyers’ bodies and not to the governmental authority in charge of justice because training is an essential and essential element in consolidating constitutionally enshrined defense rights, and it is the title and goal of the profession’s independence, freedom, self-regulation and dignity. He stressed that authorizing its management to the governmental authority in charge of justice, which is considered an executive body, makes the student at the institute and the trainee subordinate to the ministry and not to his professional body, and thus raising him on the rules of administrative subordination instead of independence, which is considered a guarantee of the profession and a privilege for citizens, and not for the lawyer, so that he can carry the message of the law and plead with honour, freedom, conscience, independence and integrity. Paragraph 7 of Article 99 also raises a constitutional problem related to the absence of a specific regulation, which is called “legislative omission,” because the Commission’s Council’s failure to decide on the dispute means a decision to reject it, that is, a refusal to review the preservation decision, which authorizes the Attorney General to appeal it before the consultation room, in order to settle it with a decision not to blame, since the stipulation that the file be submitted by force of law to the consultation room does not indicate who files it, nor how to file it, nor its procedure, which makes the paragraph In violation of the Constitution, as long as the court decides on decisions and appeals and not mere referrals of appeals and decisions. Likewise, authorizing the Authority’s Council, according to Article 100, to pursue any lawyer based on what is called a seizure, “is considered a matter that violates the Constitution because it combines the authority to pursue and the authority to rule and affects the independence and impartiality of the disciplinary authority.” The problem of discrimination between bodies Among the constitutional defects recorded in the draft law, according to Lawyer Al-Hini, is what he always considered discrimination between bodies, because Article 123 established categories for lawyers and divided them into three electoral categories: over twenty years of age, between 10 and 20 years, and between 5 years and ten years. It was recorded that it violated the principle of equality between professional representations. So, the first percentage was set at 40 percent, the second percentage was set at 50 percent, and the third percentage was set at 10 percent. He stressed that “the disparity in proportions has no constitutional or legal logic because it violates the principle of equality and non-discrimination, undermines equal opportunities between categories of lawyers, and makes one group more powerful over another group in attendance and voting, even though the electoral vote is one and does not differ or differentiate. Therefore, this article is considered a violation of the Constitution.” Al-Heini added that not organizing the category of former captains within the electoral categories “constitutes a legislative deviation and a clear violation of the freedom of candidacy and choice. Captains are the pillar of the profession, its structure, and the foundation of its stability. They are the bearers of the torch of the message and the title of the profession’s traditions and ethics. Therefore, not organizing their category within these electoral categories is a constitutional violation of the freedom of candidacy and choice, and a constitutional violation of the independence of the profession, its self-organization, its freedom and dignity, and thus this article is considered a violation of the constitution.” He also considered that Article 124 was tainted by the defect of unconstitutionality, because on the one hand, it did not equal the number of council members in the various Moroccan bodies. Article 130, relating to the duration of the election of the president, is added to it, considering that it is in violation of the constitution because of “inequality, discrimination, and equal opportunity between the president and members, prejudice to the freedom of candidacy for the president and members, infringement on the freedom of choice of lawyers, infringement on the independence and self-regulation of the profession, and failure to enable lawyers to choose the best talents and expertise represented by the president and members.”
