On 15 April 2026 The ICJ condemned the continued deprivation of liberty of Serbian lawyer Cedomir Stojkovic and the criminal proceedings against him on charges of incitement to violent overthrow of the constitutional order and disclosure of official secrets, which appear to constitute reprisals for the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. On 4 April 2026, Serbia’s Bar Association (Advokatska komora Srbije) expressed concern that the political nature of the charges against him and the three-year period covered by the indictment “give rise to the suspicion that his detention, along with other measures imposed against attorney Stojkovic, are being used as a means of coercion, rather than as a means of ensuring the unobstructed conduct of criminal proceedings.” The Bar Association demanded that Stojkovic be released pending trial.
“The prosecution of a lawyer for social media posts expressing criticism of the authorities is incompatible with Serbia’s obligations under international human rights law and standards,” said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Programme Director. “The Serbian authorities must release Stojkovic and ensure that lawyers can exercise their right to freedom of expression without fear of reprisal.”
The political nature of the charges, the breadth of the indictment covering social media posts over a three-year period, and the severity of the restrictive measures imposed on him, including pre-trial detention, house arrest and a prohibition on posting on social media and on participating in public life, give rise to serious concern that he is being prosecuted to punish him for his public criticism of the Serbian authorities.
Stojkovic was arrested on 29 December 2025 and held in pre-trial detention for 30 days before being transferred to house arrest on 27 March 2026. He remains subject to restrictive measures, including a prohibition on posting on social media and on participating in public life. The charges relate to 17 social media posts published over approximately three years, which the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade has characterized as incitement to violent overthrow of the constitutional order and disclosure of official secrets.
On 24 March 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers addressed a communication to the Serbian Government expressing concern that several provisions of a series of amendments and newly adopted laws relating to the judiciary and the prosecution authorities “may not be in line with international human rights standards related to the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial, including: the impartiality of the prosecution service, the separation of powers, and the ability of judges and prosecutors to perform their functions free from undue influence, pressure or interference.”
A Tunisian lawyer and human rights defender, Ahmed Souab, who was sentenced to prison on terrorism-related charges, will face a new trial on appeal on February 12, 2026, Human Rights Watch said. The Tunisian authorities should immediately drop the unfounded charges and release him, and stop retaliating against critics and the lawyers defending them.
Tunisian authorities prosecuted Souab, 69, for statements he made outside of court while representing defendants in a notorious case of “conspiracy against state security.” On October 31, 2025, a Tunis anti-terrorism court sentenced him to five years in prison and three years of administrative supervision. His trial lasted just minutes; Souab was not present, and journalists were reportedly barred from attending.
“Ahmed Souab, a lawyer, former administrative judge, and fierce advocate for judicial independence, is behind bars simply for his defense work and outspoken views,” said Bassam Khawaja, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “His abusive prosecution for defending others from abusive prosecution shows the sheer extent of the Tunisian authorities’ crackdown on any dissent.”
Anti-terrorism agents arrested Souab in his home on April 21, following comments he made after the “conspiracy case” verdict on April 19. That day, 37 people, including lawyers, activists, and opponents, were sentenced after a sham trial for terrorism and security-related offenses to prison terms ranging from 4 to 66 years.
Standing outside the headquarters of Tunis Bar Association, Souab reportedly said: “It seems that it is not the detainees who have a knife turned on them, but rather, it’s the president of the chamber who has a knife [at his throat].” Video excerpts of his statement circulated widely on social media. Souab’s defense committee explained that he was referring to pressure exerted on judges.
Human Rights Watch has documented the authorities’ repeated attacks on the judiciary in Tunisia, including President Kais Saied’s dismantling of the High Judicial Council in February 2022. The attacks have severely undermined the rule of law, allowed the executive to weaponize the judiciary for political ends, and jeopardized Tunisians’ right to a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said.
The Tunisian authorities are increasingly relying on remote trials for terrorism cases, especially for politically motivated trials against dissidents. The practice of remote trial by video is inherently abusive, including by undermining detainees’ right to be brought physically before a judge to assess their well-being and the legality and conditions of their detention.
On October 31, Souab was convicted of “endangering the lives of people entitled to protection by deliberately disclosing information that could reveal their identities” and of “making threats in connection with a terrorist offense,” his family told Human Rights Watch.
Souab’s family said he has a history of cardiac conditions and experienced a deterioration in his health in prison. He has suffered several nosebleeds, the cause of which was not determined, they said.
Over the past three years, the authorities have increasingly relied on an aggressive legal toolbox, including unfounded security and terrorism charges under the penal code and 2015 Counterterrorism Law, to target critics and lawyers with judicial harassment, abusive criminal prosecution, arbitrary detention, and travel bans for the legitimate exercise of their profession. see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/tunisia/
Today, 24 January 2026, marks the International Day of the Endangered Lawyer. In recognition of endangered lawyers around the world, the undersigned NGOs, express deep alarm at the growing repression of lawyers worldwide for the legitimate exercise of their professional duties. Attacks on lawyers strike at the very heart of the rule of law, deny victims meaningful access to justice, and enable wider assaults on human rights and democratic institutions.
In Russia, the regime of Vladimir Putin has moved to punish not only opponents but also those who defend them. One year ago this month, to cite just one example, lawyers Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser, and Igor Sergunin, members of the defense team of the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny, were sentenced to an average of four and a half years in prison on fabricated extremism charges simply for carrying out their ordinary professional duties. Since then, Russia has intensified its harassment of lawyers, most recently arresting human rights attorney Maria Bontsler in May 2025.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s seizure of the Afghanistan Independent Bar Association and the transfer of licensing to the Ministry of Justice effectively stripped thousands of lawyers of their right to practise, with women lawyers almost entirely excluded from the profession.
In Iran, recent reports show a pattern of state capture of bar associations, politically motivated prosecutions, and gender specific persecution of women lawyers, which together erode fair trial guarantees for all.
In Tanzania, legal advocates have faced systemic oppression from the government, including oppression under the Advocates Act, which gives the executive branch power to manage the legal profession and control over disciplinary measures against lawyers.
In China, the regime systematically cracks down on human rights lawyers, using vague national security laws and administrative controls to dismantle the independent legal profession.
These examples are a part of a wider and well-documented trend. Lawyers are disbarred, disciplined, arbitrarily detained, prosecuted, forced into exile, subjected to surveillance and harassment, and in some cases killed, precisely because they seek to uphold the rights of their clients, including human rights defenders, opposition leaders, journalists, women, minorities, and other marginalized communities.
Despite this, lawyers continue to perform a crucial function. Even in countries without an independent and impartial judiciary, where judicial outcomes are largely predetermined, lawyers document abuses, create records of testimonies and verdicts, and preserve evidence that can one day support accountability. Their efforts also enable recourse to international and regional mechanisms once domestic remedies have been exhausted or shown to be ineffective. As the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers recognized in her 2024 report, “justice systems play an essential role in safeguarding democracy, and the work of those justice systems is carried out by people. To protect the rule of law and democracy, we must protect those people.”
Justice is never won easily. But it cannot be won at all if those who defend it are left defenseless.
On May 13, 2025, the Council of Europe (CoE) Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer opened for signature. This is the first international treaty specifically designed to safeguard lawyers from threats, harassment, and undue interference in their work. This is a historic breakthrough, but it will mean little if governments fail to give it real force. We call on all CoE member states to sign and ratify the Convention without delay and to implement it fully. We encourage states in other regions to develop complementary binding standards so that protection of the legal profession becomes a universal norm…
No lawyer should be punished for defending a client. We honour the courage of all endangered lawyers working under threat, and we reaffirm our collective commitment to protect them and to uphold the right of every person to an independent defense and a fair trial.
Respectfully,
Human Rights Foundation
The Anti-Corruption Foundation
The Arrested Lawyers Initiative
Free Russia Foundation
Freedom House
Freedom Now
George W. Bush Institute
Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign
Human Rights First
Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice
Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
Elisa Massimino, Human Rights Institute, Georgetown Law
On 5 January 2026 the International Commission of Jurists and many other NGOs issued a joint statement calling on the authorities to immediately terminate the abusive criminal proceedings and drop charges ahead of the 26 Istanbul Heavy Penal Court’s expected final hearing scheduled for 5 to 9 January 2026.
The continued prosecution of the president and 10 executive board members of the Istanbul Bar Association, and the prosecutor’s request for their conviction on terrorism charges are a damning reflection of the troubled state of the rule of law and democratic norms in Turkey.
The prosecutor seeks the criminal conviction of all eleven members of the Bar’s elected leadership – President Prof. İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu, Ahmet Ergin, Bengisu Kadı Çavdar, Ekim Bilen Selimoğlu, Ezgi Şahin Yalvarici, Fırat Epözdemir, Hürrem Sönmez, Mehmedali Barış Beşli, Metin İriz, Rukiye Leyla Süren, and Yelde Koçak Urfa – on the charge of “spreading terrorist propaganda” under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, solely for issuing a public statement on 21 December 2024 concerning the killing of two journalists in northern Syria and the arrest of journalists and lawyers at a related peaceful protest in Istanbul the day before.
The trial prosecutor’s final opinion confirms and deepens the concerns raised by 56 international organisations in the joint statement of January 2025, condemning the initiation of criminal and civil proceedings against the Bar’s leadership, and in the April 2025 joint statement, which deplored the removal of the elected board and the escalating attacks on lawyers across Turkey. A group of the organisations also submitted a joint amicus curiae brief in which they concluded that the proceedings violate Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law and constitute an unjustified interference with the independence of the legal profession.
A clear misuse of criminal law
In his final opinion, the prosecutor alleges that by referring to the two individuals killed in Syria as journalists and by citing international humanitarian law applicable to the protection of civilians and media workers in conflict zones, the Bar leadership “treated as a war crime” an operation carried out by security forces, thereby intentionally legitimising and disseminating the ultimate separatist aims of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The prosecutor further asserts that describing those killed as journalists “encouraged” membership of the PKK and “made its methods appear legitimate”, amounting to “press and media–based terrorist propaganda” under Article 7/2 of the Anti-Terrorism Law. These allegations, which claim that a lawful, rights-based statement consciously advanced the objectives of an armed organisation, are wholly unfounded and legally unsustainable.
As emphasised in both joint statements in January and April 2025 and the amicus curiae brief in September 2025, the Istanbul Bar Association has a statutory and ethical duty to speak out on violations of human rights and the rule of law. The prosecutor’s position effectively criminalises the Bar Association’s discharge of this duty protected under both domestic law and international human rights law and standards. The prosecutor’s construal of a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression as a terrorism offence amounts to a misuse of criminal law and judicial harassment.
Violations of international standards and the Bar’s statutory mandate
International and regional human rights standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, and consistent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, affirm that lawyers and their associations must be able to engage in public debate on matters of justice and human rights without fear of reprisals.
Criminalising their exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and association contravenes the provisions of these instruments safeguarding the rights and role of lawyers and their professional organisations, as well as Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Articles 26, 27 and 33 of the Constitution of Türkiye.
The criminal proceedings strike at the heart of the independence of the legal profession and amount to a misuse of counter-terrorism laws to silence criticism, suppress human rights monitoring, and undermine self-governance of bar associations.
Signatories (in alphabetical order):
Amnesty International
Center of Elaboration and Research on Democracy (CRED)
Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (Le Conseil des barreaux européens, CCBE)
Defense Commission of the Barcelona Bar Association (Spain)
Deutscher Anwaltverein (German Bar Association, Germany)
Eşit Haklar İçin İzleme Derneği (Association for Monitoring Equal Rights, Türkiye)
European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH)
The European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA)
Fédération des Barreaux d’Europe (European Bars Federation, FBE)
Foundation Day of the Endangered Lawyer
Hak İnsiyatifi Derneği (Rights Initiative Association, Türkiye)
Hakikat Adalet Hafıza Merkezi (Truth Justice Memory Center, Türkiye)
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (UK)
Human Rights Institute of the Brussels Bar (Belgium)
Human Rights Watch
İnsan Hakları Derneği (Human Rights Association, Türkiye)
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)
International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Kaos GL Derneği (Kaos GL Association, Türkiye)
The Law Society of England and Wales (LSEW, UK)
Lawyers for Lawyers (Netherlands)
Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC, Canada)
Lyon Bar Association (France)
National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL, Philippines)
PEN Norway (Norway)
Turkey Litigation Support Project (TLSP, UK)
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Vakfı (Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, Türkiye)
Vereinigung Demokratischer Jurist:innen VDJ (Association of Democratic Jurists, Germany)
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
then on 9 January 2026 Amnesty stated “The decision to acquit the Istanbul Bar Association leadership of these unfounded charges is welcome news. This case was a clear misuse of criminal law and should never have been brought in the first place.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/
Twenty-three human rights organizations have called for the immediate release of İstanbul Bar Association executive board member Fırat Epözdemir, who was arrested last week over alleged ties to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the Media and Law Studies Association reported February 3, 2025,
Advocacy groups condemned his detention as unlawful and part of a broader crackdown on human rights defenders and legal professionals in Turkey.
The Human Rights Defenders Solidarity Network (İHSDA) issued a statement denouncing Epözdemir’s arrest and urging authorities to drop the charges. The statement, signed by multiple rights organizations, emphasized that targeting lawyers and human rights advocates with judicial harassment is unacceptable.
Epözdemir was arrested Saturday by an İstanbul court on charges of “membership in an armed terrorist group” and “disseminating terrorist propaganda.”
Prosecutors in İstanbul accuse Epözdemir of joining a PKK-linked WhatsApp group in 2015, during the peak of clashes between Kurdish militants and Turkish security forces in the country’s predominantly Kurdish southeast.
The PKK has waged an armed insurgency against the Turkish state since 1984, a conflict that has left more than 40,000 people dead.
Epözdemir’s legal team has faced severe restrictions in accessing case files due to a confidentiality order, preventing them from reviewing the evidence against him. Authorities also imposed a 24-hour ban on lawyer visits without providing a clear justification, raising concerns of due process violations.
The joint statement criticized the prosecution’s reliance on a decade-old public event and phone conversations as grounds for Epözdemir’s arrest, calling the charges baseless and politically motivated.
His detention, rights groups argue, is an attack on the legal profession and human rights advocacy in Turkey. They linked his arrest to broader efforts to suppress dissent, noting that members of the İstanbul Bar Association have faced mounting pressure after issuing a statement regarding two journalists killed in Syria.
“Lawyers and bar associations must not be criminalized for their advocacy and defense of fundamental rights,” the statement said. “We reject all attempts to silence human rights defenders and demand the immediate and unconditional release of Fırat Epözdemir.”
Among the signatories were the MLSA, the Human Rights Association (İHD), Civil Rights Defenders, the Turkish Human Rights Foundation (TİHV) and numerous other civil society organizations.
24 January 2025 was the Day of the Endangered Lawyer. Its purpose is to call attention to threatened human rights lawyers who work to advance the rule of law and promote human rights under governmental harassment and intimidation, often at great personal risk. Each year the focus is on those lawyers working in one designated country.
In 2025, the Day of the Endangered Lawyer spotlights the persecution of lawyers in Belarus. Since 2020, a crackdown by the Belarus government has resulted in the targeting of lawyers and human rights defenders. Legal practitioners face increasing criminal sanctions, arbitrary detention and systemic interference in their abilities to practice law. Constitutional and legislative changes have eroded the independence of the judiciary and professional legal bodies and given the executive branch unwarranted control over the judiciary and legal profession.
Today, the ABA recognizes these human rights lawyers who champion justice and fight for the rule of law.
On 17 January, 2025 Mark Trevelyan for Reuters reported that three lawyers for the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny were found guilty by a Russian court of belonging to an extremist group and sentenced to years in a penal colony.
Igor Sergunin, Alexei Liptser and Vadim Kobzev were arrested in October 2023 and added the following month to an official list of “terrorists and extremists”. They were sentenced respectively to 3-1/2, 5 and 5-1/2 years after a trial held behind closed doors in the Vladimir region, east of Moscow.
“Vadim, Alexei and Igor are political prisoners and must be released immediately,” Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of the late politician, posted on X.
Human rights activists say the prosecution of lawyers who defend people speaking out against the authorities and the war in Ukraine crosses a new threshold in the repression of dissent under President Vladimir Putin.
“Lawyers cannot be persecuted for their work. Pressure on defence lawyers risks destroying the little that remains of the rule of law, whose appearance the Russian authorities are still trying to maintain,” rights group OVD-Info said in a statement.
It said Navalny’s lawyers were being prosecuted “only because the letter of the law still matters to them and they did not leave the man alone with the repressive machine”.
The Kremlin says it does not comment on individual court cases. Authorities have long cast Navalny and his supporters as Western-backed traitors seeking to destabilise Russia. Despite his imprisonment, Navalny was able via his lawyers to post on social media and file frequent lawsuits over his treatment in prison, using the resulting legal hearings as a chance to keep speaking out against the government and the war. The lawyers were accused of enabling him to continue to function as the leader of an “extremist group”, even from behind bars, by passing his messages to the outside world.
In court, a woman shouted “Boys, you are heroes” and supporters applauded the three men, standing together in a barred cage for the defendants, after their sentencing.
Yulia Navalnaya last month published video of secretly recorded meetings between Navalny and the lawyers in prison, something she said was illegal because an accused person has the right to confer privately with a lawyer. Russia’s federal prison service did not reply to a request for comment.
Navalnaya said the recordings were made by the authorities and handed to her team after it offered a reward for people to come forward with information about Navalny’s death.
She alleges her husband was murdered on Putin’s orders, an accusation that the Kremlin has strongly denied. Navalnaya herself is wanted in Russia for alleged extremist activity but has said she hopes to return to the country one day and run for president.
On 21 January 2025 the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation, Mariana Katzarova, urged authorities to end the severe crackdown on the legal profession in Russia and stop endangering the lives and safety of lawyers.
To mark the Day of the Endangered Lawyer, the Law Society of England and Wales issued a press release on 24 January honouring legal professionals who are targeted for upholding the rule of law and defending a strong justice system.
The Law Society has published its annual intervention tracker which shows that the Society took 40 actions relating to 17 countries in 2023. Most of these actions were initiated by concerns relating to arbitrary arrest or detention (58%) followed by harassment, threats and violence (27%).
Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: “Across the world, lawyers continue to face harassment, surveillance, detention, torture, enforced disappearance and arbitrary arrest and conviction...
We use this day to draw attention to the plight faced by countless lawyers across the globe, as they fight for their right to freely exercise their profession and uphold the rule of law.
A recent example comes from Amnesty International on 25 January 2024: On 31 October 2023, human rights lawyer, Hoda Abdelmoniem, was due to be released after serving her unjust five-year prison sentence stemming solely from the exercise of her human rights. Instead, the Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP) ordered her pretrial detention pending investigations into similar bogus terrorism-related charges in a separate case No. 730 of 2020. During a rare visit to 10th of Ramadan prison on 4 January, her family learned that her health continues to deteriorate and that she developed an ear infection, affecting her balance and sight. She must be immediately and unconditionally released. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/11/29/2020-award-of-european-bars-associations-ccbe-goes-to-seven-egyptian-lawyers-who-are-in-prison/]
Thanks to student Amrita Nair in the Leaflet of 14 September 2020 we have a good report of Indira Jaising‘s webinar: “The nature of the Legal Profession: Its role, challenges and limitations”
The motto of the courts is “The truth shall prevail.” Speaking at a webinar held by The Lawsters on the subject, “The nature of the Legal Profession: Its role, challenges and limitations”, senior lawyer Indira Jaisingremarked, “One can never know what the truth really is as we, as lawyers, are no eye witness to what happened. Our role is to serve the seekers of justice and help the court do justice.” The task of a lawyer is a difficult one, as they have to completely identify with the person they represent and believe their version on one hand, while on the other, they have to try to serve justice by helping the courts in their quest for finding the truth. It puts them in a situation where it becomes imperative to become dispassionate about their work “but being dispassionate about a case should not be seen as being dispassionate about the quest for justice, equality and non-discrimination,” she said. [re Jaising see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/07/22/retired-civil-servants-in-india-come-out-to-support-human-rights-defenders/]
She referred to the courts as the conflict zones and lawyers being people who resolve conflicts.
Quoting Atticus Finch, Jaising stated that the courts are to be great levelers where all men must be treated equally, but alas, this is ideal, but not necessarily the situation. Bias, blind prejudice, and lack of access to legal services have created huge gaps between people, making them less equal from one another. People come to the courts for all sorts of reasons. But the largest litigant in the court of law is the State, being respondent in a plethora of cases relating to fundamental rights violations and enjoying the monopoly for prosecuting crimes, among other things. While the state has the privilege to prosecute crimes, several individuals find themselves arrayed as accused persons in these cases, warranting the help of legal representation to prevent being stripped off of their right to life and liberty. The fight of an individual against the might of the state is unequal in criminal cases, making the system intrinsically unequal and discriminatory. Not every individual has the resources to hire a lawyer who could represent their case to the best of their capabilities. It is during such times that lawyers must come to the rescue of the unfortunate and underprivileged, to help restore balance in the system.
Jaising traced back the history of the evolution of the legal profession, stating that India got it from the British and emphasised how important it is to study the history of courts to understand how and why they function the way they do, today.
She spoke about the concept of the Star Chambers where the proceedings went on in closed chambers with only the judge, the jury, and the executioner present. Emphasis was laid on how there was no legal representation allowed and everything depended on how a person defended his own case, making it highly arbitrary as not everyone possessed the skills to defend themselves.
The emergence of the legal profession came with the modern judges having local experience and the position of the Barrister being created, with wide powers including the power to remove other advocates. The judicial system has come a long way since then, with modern-day High Courts and the Supreme Court making their own rules and the monopoly of Barristers being removed.
The Indian Bar Council Act was enforced with the objective of unifying various practicing advocates under the banner of lawyers or the members of the Bar. The Bar Councils were given more powers with regard to the decisions in matters of education, regulation and appointment. The Advocates Act of 1961 established an All India Bar which had wide powers and duties in regard to the legal profession.
Jaising remarked that the rejection of the Star Chambers and the need to protect the life and liberty of the people is what our system is based on. Lawyers are the frontline warriors and defenders of rule of law, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
She said it was the duty of the lawyers in defending and upholding the values of the 73-year-old Constitution of India.
While speaking about the Parliamentary form of government, Jaising observed that the government does may claim to represent the will of the people, but their decisions and laws are subject to judicial review and even a majoritarian government cannot violate the basic features of the Constitution. It was the duty of the lawyers to question them when they seemed to deviate from the constitutional principles and mandate.
Addressing the issues surrounding the independence of the judiciary, Jaising stated that there cannot be an independent judiciary without the independence of the legal profession. Just as there exists the separation of powers between the three branches of the government, lawyers must be independent of judges. They must be allowed to make bona fide criticism of judges and the judgements or else the system gets reduced to the archaic Star Chambers, without any voice of opposition.
She explained that being charged with contempt of court charge by the judiciary threatened the independence of the legal profession. Prashant Bhushan’s case being a recent example. In Bhushan’s case, the court exercised powers to convict him dehors the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Fundamental rights can only be restricted by law and not by relying on the inherent powers to convict, the court threatened the freedom of speech and the independence of the legal system by bypassing the Act.
“Lawyers need to be respectful of judges, but not sycophants. Lawyers who bend over backward for judges pose a threat to the independence of the legal system,” she said.
According to her, an attack on one lawyer is an attack against the entire profession. The ability of lawyers to speak truth to power must be defended collectively through Bar Associations and Bar Councils. The need of the hour is more Bar Associations that speak out on issues of Human Rights, she said.
Jaising explained how the police were often the biggest lawbreakers, relying on the media to defame the innocent. Press conferences being held by the police while the case is sub judice brings prejudice into the matter and amounts to contempt of court. It is the lawyers that step in to defend the individuals against the might of the State and a prejudiced media, she said.
She pointed out that the right to legal representation itself is under attack. She spoke of how the State had the time and again targeted various lawyers defending the foundations of the Indian Constitution by standing against CAA, defending human rights, criticizing the State among other things. As lawyers and members of the legal community, despite all attacks, the only way to live is to stand up for our rights.
When asked about the pay gap between a corporate job and litigation and whether one would have enough to fend for themselves if they take up the litigation route, Jaising made an observation that the ones who chose the corporate path realised soon that the pursuit of wealth is not giving them any satisfaction. She responded by saying that all law students must come together and demand that all juniors working with a senior advocate must be paid a minimum amount of salary that is pre-decided and equal for all. It must be taken up at an institutional level and the Bar Council must come up with a rule to tackle this problem. Like in the US, ones engaging in pro bono work must have their loans waived and must do a mandatory 2-3 years of pro bono with law firms. She encouraged students to engage in work that they’re passionate about and not be driven by the quest for money. The satisfaction derived out of the work is priceless and one will never feel the lack of money when they engage in the work that they love and are passionate about.
In response to a question regarding the emotional connect of a lawyer with a client and the righteousness of the law and how it might prove to be an impediment, Jaising said that it is always possible to have an emotional connection with the client while also being dispassionate about the case. It is important to not make a conflict out of the two. One must not lie or manipulate the record but make the judge see the law as they see it or how the law ought to be seen.
“Get up, stand up and stand up for your rights!” said Jaising. She urged law students and lawyers to become human rights defenders and fight for principles they believed in.
The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on Friday 11 September issued detention warrants for 60 lawyers on terror charges, following a call by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for the suspension of lawyers accused of terrorist links in a speech on September 1, Turkish Minute reported. According to a statement released by the office, detention warrants were issued for 48 lawyers, seven trainee lawyers, four dismissed judges and a law school graduate over their alleged affiliation with the Gülen movement, a religious group inspired by Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen.
The lawyers followed up on “the cases of Gülen-affiliated defendants,” and “tried to manipulate the trials to the benefit of the terrorist organization under the guise of the practice of law,” the prosecutor’s statement read.
Rights groups and lawyers criticized the detention warrants and claimed that the latest move was part of a broader strategy to obliterate the right to a defense for many who are jailed on terror charges.
“An assault on lawyers in Turkey was launched after the failed 2016 coup. This assault started with the arrest of the chair of the Konya Bar Association and 20 lawyers and has been ongoing since then,” said Barış Çelik, a lawyer who spoke to Turkish Minute. “Up until the present day, nearly 1,600 lawyers have been detained, more than 600 have been arrested and 441 have been convicted over activities related to the practice of law.”
Another law practitioner, Ömer Turanlı, told Turkish Minute that even though lawyers visited the courthouse regularly, they were rounded up by 1,500 police officers.
“Due process was ignored, case files the lawyers had worked on were gathered as evidence and the lawyers were denied the right to choose their legal representatives, restricted instead to a special lawyer assigned by the prosecution,” Turanlı said. “All this unlawfulness aims to silence lawyers.”
The detentions come in the aftermath of the news that Turkey’s governing party has started working on an amendment to the law on lawyers following Erdoğan’s call on September 1 for the suspension of lawyers accused of links to terrorism
“We should be discussing whether methods such as expulsion from the profession should be introduced for lawyers,” Erdoğan had told judges and prosecutors at a ceremony in Ankara.
Just as thieves should not be called on to defend burglars, “a lawyer who defends terrorists should not be a terrorist,” he had said.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 