THE LAW PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. X of 2011)

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney General (Mr Y. Varma): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the objective behind the present Bill is to implement long awaited reforms in order to modernise not only our legal profession, but, more generally, our judicial and legal system. It, therefore, comes to complement the Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies Act 2011, which came into operation on 01 October 2011.

This Bill, mainly seeks to implement certain recommendations of the Presidential Commission (chaired by Lord Mackay of Clashfern), the objective of which was, as hon. Members would recall, to examine and report upon the structure and operation of the judicial system and legal profession of Mauritius.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is here worth highlighting that the Presidential Commission considered it highly desirable that courses should be organised for the continuing education of lawyers. It also recommended judicial studies and stated that such studies are vitally important to the success of the Judiciary. It should be highlighted that judicial training and continuous professional development have already been introduced in many jurisdictions.

The Law Practitioners (Amendment) Bill is therefore being proposed so as to –

(a) provide for the establishment of a Council for Vocational Legal Education (CVLE);

(b) ensure that prospective law practitioners undergo an adequate period of training and pupillage;

(d) ensure that persons who wish to be considered for appointment as a judicial or legal officer follow an appropriate course, and

(e) enable a citizen of Mauritius who has obtained a professional qualification to apply for admission to practise in Mauritius as a barrister.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been debated since a long time as to why Mauritian citizens who get qualified in other common law or civil law jurisdictions cannot apply to be admitted to the Bar in Mauritius. Once enacted, this piece of legislation will translate that into reality as provision is being made for Mauritians qualified in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and France to also be able to apply for admission.

However, to make such persons better accustomed to the Mauritian Legal System, they will need to follow a course to be run by the Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies either during their pupillage or before taking the oath.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with this Bill, judicial training will become compulsory for anyone aspiring to become a Judge or Magistrate. It will also be imperative for someone to follow a course before becoming a legal officer. All law practitioners will henceforth be required to follow Continuous Professional Development Programmes every year to keep themselves abreast with the latest developments in the law.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said over the years about the way pupillage is currently being conducted. It has been reported that there is seldom a proper structure for such training. In this Bill, provision is specifically being made for the Council to regulate pupillage by designating pupil masters and the law will, henceforth, impose duties on them which will include, inter alia, the obligation to provide to the Council for Vocational Legal Education a comprehensive report on the pupil’s performance. Provision is also being made in this Bill for a pupil to go to Court after six months’ pupillage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the House will have already noted, the Law Practitioners (Amendment) Bill not only seeks to implement some recommendations of the Presidential Commission, but also, very importantly, seeks to bring long-awaited reforms insofar as the organisation and conduct of the Bar Vocational Course and Examinations are concerned, and thereby makes provision for the establishment of a Council for Vocational Legal Education and reviews the whole manner in which the vocational course and examinations are to be conducted.

Indeed, as the House is already aware, the results of the Vocational Examinations conducted by the Council of Legal Education (CLE) these past few years have been the cause of great concern not only among the vocational course students and members of the legal profession, but also among members of the public generally. The matter has been raised several times by hon. Members from both sides of the House. I recall raising the issue when I was myself a Government backbencher.

This state of affairs has consequently led to a number of representations from students for the reform of the vocational course which is found to be too academic and a repetition of the courses offered for the obtention of a law degree. It is being proposed to make the course more practice based and to include subjects such as advocacy, drafting, opinion writing, civil procedure, criminal procedure, evidence, ethics among others. In fact, the Chairperson of the Council of Legal Education has himself requested that the whole course be reviewed and conducted by a different institution. It may here be noted that the University of Mauritius (UOM) has already agreed to run the vocational course and to set up a centre for Professional Legal Studies for that purpose. I am informed that the Northumbria University, Nottingham Law School, Université de Limoges and the Cardiff Law School among other universities have expressed their interest to collaborate with the University of Mauritius in devising the course.

Furthermore, the Tertiary Education Commission for its part has been working in collaboration with the University of Mauritius in relation to the practical aspects of the conduct of the vocational course. Work, for the implementation of the changes being proposed today, is therefore already in progress. It is, therefore, being suggested that the courses will be run by the University of Mauritius or any other accredited persons and exams will be conducted by a Vocational Examinations Board.

I must point out that the draft Bill was circulated among various stakeholders, including the Judiciary, the Mauritius Bar Association, the Chamber of Notaries, the Mauritius Law Society, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Law Reform Commission for their views and comments, and that due consideration has been given to the representations made in the finalisation of the Bill. However, in view of the fact that representations were received even after the introduction of the Bill in the National Assembly, I will, in the light of those representations, be moving certain amendments, as circulated, at Committee Stage. These, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, were communicated to hon. Members well in advance to give them ample time to study the proposed amendments.

I shall now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, take the House through the salient features of the Law Practitioners (Amendment) Bill, indicating, as I proceed, the changes and new provisions which the Bill proposes to bring.

First of all, clause 4 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 4 of the Law Practitioners Act which deals with qualifications of law practitioners, to make new provision in relation thereto. Thus, the new requirements for a citizen of Mauritius to apply for admission to practise law in Mauritius are found in the proposed section 4(2), by virtue of which prospective barristers who qualified in a State other than Mauritius should have a professional qualification and followed a prescribed course of training in Mauritius, while other prospective law practitioners – like those who qualified in Mauritius – should have been awarded a law degree, completed the vocational course and as per the proposed section 4(2) as it presently stands, sat for and passed an examination. Moreover, every prospective law practitioner should have undergone pupillage. I would here like to point out that I shall, at Committee Stage, move amendments to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill so as to –

(i) delete the word “full-time” from the definition of “law degree”;

(ii) delete and replace the definition of “professional qualification” by a new definition which will enable citizens of Mauritius who qualified in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or France to apply for admission to practise in Mauritius as a barrister;

(iii) delete and replace subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of the proposed section 4(2)(a) by new subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), and thereby also provide for a new definition, which is that of “Vocational Examinations Board”.

Clause 5, for its part, repeals and replaces section 5 of the Law Practitioners Act which presently provides for pupillage or articleship in special cases by a new section 5 which is entitled “Vocational course” and by virtue of which the subjects to be taught for the vocational course are as specified in the new added Second Schedule to the Law Practitioners Act. I shall, at Committee Stage, move amendments to the proposed section 5 to specify that vocational courses should be conducted by accredited persons and to delete paragraph (b) of the said section and replace it by a new paragraph (b) which specifies that the vocational examinations should have been conducted by the Vocational Examinations Board.

Clause 6 of the Bill seeks to amend the Law Practitioners Act by inserting a new section 5A, which provides for pupillage and –

by virtue of which the Council For Vocational Legal Educationshall, as per the proposed clause 5A(1), draw up and keep under review a list of law firms, and of law practitioners of not less than 15 years’ standing from each of the 3 branches of the profession, which and who the Council For Vocational Legal Education, after consultation, considers are able to provide the required amenities and training to be a pupil master;
more specifically, in its subsection (2), for the period of pupillage required for barristers, attorneys and notaries respectively;
the duties of a pupil master;
according to which prospective barristers who hold a professional qualification must, during their period of pupillage, follow, to the satisfaction of the Council For Vocational Legal Education, a course of training in such subjects as may, in the Council For Vocational Legal Education’s opinion, be necessary to enable them to practise in Mauritius. They shall, however, not be required to sit for any examination.

I shall, at Committee Stage, move amendments to the proposed section 5A (1) and (2) so as to merge paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and to delete there from the reference to law firms, and in order to provide, in subsection (2), for pupillage in Mauritius, England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or France. As for section 5A(6), I shall move an amendment to specify the time when the course of training referred to therein should be followed.

Clause 8 of the Bill, as it presently stands, amends section 9A of the Law Practitioners Act to provide that no barrister or Attorney shall be appointed as Senior Counsel or Senior Attorney unless he is, and has been for at least 15 years, a barrister or an Attorney entitled to practise before the Supreme Court. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment to this clause to delete and replace the proposed section 9A(2) by a new subsection (2) in order to provide that barristers and Attorneys of 15 years’ standing may be appointed as Senior Counsel or Senior Attorney.

Under Clause 9 of the Bill, the Law Practitioners Act is further amended to introduce new sections 9B and 9C, which respectively provide for Continuing Professional Development and courses for prospective judicial and legal officers.

As far as Continuing Professional Development is concerned, provision is made in the new section 9B for the Institute to devise Continuing Professional Development Programmes for each of the three branches of the legal profession with a view to broadening the knowledge of law practitioners and legal officers, keeping them abreast of developments in the law, encouraging them to share experiences and enhancing their professional skills. These Programmes may, for instance, include attendance at lectures, workshops or seminars, and every law practitioner, including legal officers, shall in every year follow a Continuing Professional Development Programme for the prescribed number of hours unless he is excused by the Chief Justice for reasons such as proven ability and experience, age, ill health or unavoidable professional commitments. I shall, at Committee Stage, move amendments to the proposed section 9(B)(3) to provide that law practitioners and legal officers shall “participate in” instead of “follow” Continuing Professional Development Programmes, and for the possibility of being excused on the grounds of age or ill health only. It is to be noted that failure to follow a Continuing Professional Development Programme may result in the matter being reported to the Judicial and Legal Service Commission in the case of a legal officer, and in the case of a law practitioner, in a written warning or the suspension of his right to practise for a period not exceeding one year.

As regards the new section 9C, it provides for another ground breaking and long awaited provision that any person who wishes to be considered for appointment as a Judge, Magistrate or legal officer shall follow a course devised by the Institute, and which is meant to enable persons to familiarise themselves with the duties which they will be required to perform in the office to which they wish to be appointed. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment to this proposed section to provide for the course to be approved by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission.

Furthermore, under Clause 10 of the Bill as presently drafted, section 10 of the Law Practitioners Act which provides for the Roll of law practitioners is amended by repealing and replacing subsection (3) by a new subsection according to which the Supreme Court shall, on the appointment of a law practitioner as a judicial or legal officer, remove the person’s name from the roll and may furthermore, on its own motion or on application by the person concerned, and after making such enquiry as it thinks fit amend an entry on the roll, remove the name of a person from the roll, cause the name of a person which has been removed from the roll to be restored. I shall, at Committee Stage, move to delete clause 10 and replace it by a new clause 10 which provides, inter alia, for a new subsection (4) which makes provision for the Supreme Court to keep a list of barristers in private practice, legal officers, law firms and law practitioners employed by them, law practitioners in employment and legal consultants.

Under Clause 11 of the Bill, section 11 of the Law Practitioners Act which deals with the establishment of the Council of Legal Education is repealed and replaced by a new section 11 which provides for the establishment of a Council for Vocational Legal Education. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment, firstly, to the proposed section 11(2)(a) to add the words “and such other persons as he may deem fit” and, secondly, to section 11(3)(a)(ii) to replace the words “after consultation with” by the words “on the recommendation of” .

Clause 12 of the Bill, as presently drafted, amends the Law Practitioners Act by inserting therein new section 11A, which specifically provides for the Secretariat of the Council for Vocational Legal Education. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment to this clause so as to delete it and replace it by a new clause 12 which also makes provision for a new section 11B which provides for the setting up of a Vocational Examinations Board for the purpose of organising and conducting the vocational examinations on behalf of the Council.

As for Clause 13, it repeals section 12 of the Law Practitioners Act which provides for the functions of the Council of Legal Education and replaces it by a new section 12, whereby the functions and powers of the Council for Vocational Legal Education are listed. Thus, under the clause as presently drafted, the Council for Vocational Legal Education shall mainly be responsible for the granting of an authorisation to run a vocational course, supervise vocational courses and approve oral or written examinations for prospective law practitioners, draw up and keep under review a list of law firms, and of law practitioners who may be pupil masters. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment, firstly, to delete the proposed section 12(b) and replace it by a new paragraph (b) according to which the Council shall supervise vocational courses and organise, through the Vocational Examinations Board, oral or written examinations for prospective law practitioners, and secondly, to delete the reference to law firms in section 12(c).

Another major amendment to the Law Practitioners Act is found in clause 14 of the Bill, which introduces a new section 12A in the Law Practitioners Act which makes provision for accredited persons. Thus, by virtue of this section, only an accredited person shall run a vocational course, or hold himself out, by advertisement or otherwise, as being a person who runs or is entitled to run a vocational course. It is to be noted that “accredited person” is specifically defined in the Bill as meaning the University of Mauritius or a person who is the holder of an authorisation granted under section 12A (3), which provides that the Council for Vocational Legal Education may, following receipt of such a request, authorise a person to run such vocational course as it may approve. Under the proposed section 12A(7)(b), the Council for Vocational Legal Education may also require the accredited person to submit its syllabus or programme to it for approval and make such arrangements as it thinks fit to supervise the running of the course or the holding of examinations. I would here like to point out that I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment to this clause to delete there from the words “ or the holding of examinations”.

Under clause 15 of the Bill, section 21 of the Law Practitioners Act (which relates to the right of audience before Courts) is amended by adding a new subsection (4) by virtue of which a prospective barrister or attorney who has completed 6 months of pupillage may represent his pupil master’s client at any stage of any proceedings before a Magistrate other than a trial on merits, arguments on a matter of law or submissions at the end of a case. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment to the proposed section 21(4) (a) to specify that a pupil may only represent the client in Court in the presence of the pupil master.

Furthermore, under clause 16, a new section 21A is sought to be introduced in the Law Practitioners Act, which specifically makes provision, inter alia, for a person following a vocational course or a prospective law practitioner undergoing pupillage to have access to the Supreme Court Library.

Clause 18 of the Bill, furthermore, seeks to add 2 Schedules to the Law Practitioners Act, which respectively provide for a list of legal officers and a list of subjects to be taught for the vocational course. I shall, at Committee Stage, move amendments to the Schedule in order to delete, in the newly added Second Schedule, “Dispute resolution” from Part ll and to include “Commercial and business law” and “Family law” therein, and secondly, to insert in Part lll, the subject “Responsabilité Notariale”.

Clause 19 of the Bill, for its part, provides for a consequential amendment to the Tertiary Education Commission Act (TEC Act), the main objective of which is to provide for a definition of the word “programmes”, which shall not include vocational course, except for the purpose of section 6 of the Tertiary Education Commission Act, which relates to the allocation of funds to tertiary education institutions in the light of their annual and long term programmes.

Finally, clause 20 of the Bill (which relates to transitional provision and savings) provides, amongst other things, that where at the commencement of the Law Practitioners (Amendment) Act 2011, the Council for Vocational Legal Education is satisfied that a prospective law practitioner has, in accordance with the repealed section 4 of the Law Practitioners Act, started undergoing pupillage, it may, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, authorise him to continue and complete his pupillage which shall be deemed to be pupillage for the purposes of section 5A. I shall, at Committee Stage, move an amendment to clause 20(2) to replace the words “shall, the commencement of this Act” by the words “before the commencement of this Act shall, at the commencement of this Act”. I shall also move an amendment to clause 21 to delete and replace the existing provision by new provisions which provide that different sections of the Act may come into operation on different dates.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the objective behind the above changes is therefore, on the one hand, not only to review the courses being held by the Council of Legal Education and the examinations which are held but to ensure also that law students are given adequate and practical training so as to improve their chances of success at the vocational course and, on the other hand, to ensure that a high degree of professionalism and standard is maintained in the Judiciary and among law practitioners and legal officers throughout their career, and thereby improving our judicial and legal system generally by bringing the necessary reforms to ensure that members of the public get, as far as possible, the best professional legal services and thereby reinforcing the confidence of the public in the legal profession and the Judiciary.

I am thankful to my officers who have worked hard to make this Bill a reality.

I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the measures and amendments being proposed today should be favourably welcomed.

With these words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. A. Boolell rose and seconded.

Mr Varma: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all hon. Members who have intervened on the Bill and particularly congratulate Ministers Pillay Chedumbrum and Mohamed for their brilliant interventions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have heard the three orators from the Opposition and all three of them have spoken about consultation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. third Member for GRNW and Port Louis West put a Parliamentary Question in November last year – this was referred to by hon. Mohamed – and in reply to that Parliamentary Question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I said and I quote –

“If the hon. Members of the Opposition want to have their input, they are most welcome because this is a matter of national interest and above party politics. They are most welcome to come over. Let’s discuss and let’s go ahead as soon as possible.”

I said that in reply to a Parliamentary Question in November 2010, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Did any hon. Member of the Opposition get in touch with me or my office to make suggestions? Never, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir! Not one suggestion has been made!

(Interruptions)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Law Practioners (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the National Assembly in May of this year. It was read for a first time. Did the hon. Members of the Opposition get in touch with me or my office to make representations? Representations were received, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir from the Judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Chamber of Notaries, the University of Mauritius, the Law students, all of them made representations, although they were consulted prior to the preparation of the Bill. Nevertheless, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when these representations were received, we made arrangements for these representations, if valid, to be taken on board in the finalisation of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot recall how many meetings I have held with the representatives of the Bar Council. I cannot recall how many times, the Chairperson of the Bar Council has come to my office to make representations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Bill was introduced for the first time in the august Assembly, the Chairperson of the Bar Council got in touch with me. He came to my office and he made representations. I can tell you frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that most of the suggestions made by the Chairperson of the Bar Council have been taken on board.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Chief Justice wanted to have consultations with me regarding the Law Practitioners (Amendment) Bill. We have had so many meetings. Again, all the suggestions which were raised, were taken on board, and we even received a letter from the hon. Chief Justice to tell us to go ahead with the reforms. The number of times we have held consultations with the Law Society. The Chairperson and the members of the Law Society have been consulted and they have made their suggestions, which have been taken on board.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. third Member for GRNW & Port Louis West stated that the Bar Council was invited, but the Chairman of the Bar Council is abroad and I am the vice-Chairperson of the Bar Council. The representatives of the Law Society are here. Why? They are here to assist the debate. They are not here to support every Tom, Dick and Harry. They are here to witness the debates of the Law Practitioners (Amendment) Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I need to make a point. The Chamber of the Notaries were invited and we made arrangements but, unfortunately, they could not get access to the National Assembly today and this is a matter which I want to take up with the Speaker of the National Assembly and which is very serious. We made arrangements for them to be present, but they could not have access.

This Bill has been debated in a number of forums. All the stakeholders have been consulted, not once, not twice, but on a number of occasions. The hon. third Member for GRNW & Port Louis West referred to the Committee which was set up in 1982. The Committee which was set up in 1982 was to put forward the Council of Legal Education. Are we in the same situation today, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? We are not in the same situation because we have got an institution which we need to review the functioning. We need to modernise our legal system. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us not lose focus of this Bill. What does the Bill primarily want to achieve?

First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a groundbreaking decision has been taken by Government to introduce compulsory judicial training for someone who aspires to become a Magistrate or a Judge. Never before have we had such a decision. They were in Government for many years. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have tried to get hold of a Parliamentary Question or of any debate which was held in the National Assembly from 2000 to 2005 as regards the reform of the courses being held by the Council of Legal Education, but I could find none. It is now when this Government has taken the initiative, it is now when the Government has taken the decision to go ahead and reform the courses that they are criticising.

(Interruptions)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one more thing, in so many jurisdictions …

(Interruptions)

The Deputy Speaker: Order!

Mr Varma: … they have introduced continuous provisional development. This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, …

(Interruptions)

The Deputy Speaker: Order!

(Interruptions)

Order please! Order! Hon. Bhagwan, please!

(Interruptions)

Order! Order please!

(Interruptions)

Order! Hon. Bhagwan!

(Interruptions)

Order! Order please!

(Interruptions)

Order! Hon. Bhagwan! Hon. Bhagwan, please!

(Interruptions)

Hon. Attorney General, you may continue now.

(Interruptions)

Order!

(Interruptions)

Hon. Members, I will have to take action in case silence is not restored in the House. I know it’s time for diner, bear with us for a few minutes! I now invite the hon. Attorney General to resume.

(Interruptions)

Mr Varma: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I was saying is that we should not lose focus of this Bill. In many jurisdictions, they have introduced continuous professional development and this is what we are precisely doing with this piece of legislation. As you know, in countries like the United Kingdom, it is compulsory to follow CPD, and this is what we are doing with this piece of legislation.

As far as pupillage is concerned, …

(Interruptions)

The Deputy Speaker: Order now!

Mr Varma: … we all know what is the situation now. What happens? You know, Mr X and you go and do pupillage with him or her and then there is no

infrastructure. Sometimes the pupils do not even have an office, they just go to the court and listen to the court proceedings. What we are doing precisely with this piece of legislation, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that we are reforming the system of pupillage. The Council for Vocational Legal Education will be entrusted with the duty to designate the pupil master. There will be duties imposed on the pupil master. They will need to make a report which is sent to the Council for Vocational Legal Education. This is what is being achieved with this piece of legislation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one more important thing. How many representations have been made to the effect that we should allow barristers qualified in other countries to come and practise in Mauritius?

We did make provision in the Bill for barristers to be qualified in other commonwealth jurisdictions as be prescribed to be able to practise. They have been speaking over the Bar Council over and over again and I know why. It is because there is a member of the Bar Council who is a member of the politburo of the MMM! This is how the information gets there. But do the hon. Members of the Opposition know about the consultations which we have held with the Chairman of the Bar Council, with the Judiciary? Do they know it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir? I can mention a number of amendments which the Bar Council has suggested and which we have incorporated in this piece of legislation.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as far as the law degree is concerned, the hon. third Member for Curepipe and Midlands stated why is there a difference between the law degree and the professional qualification, but does he know the representations which the Bar Council has made? He does not know! Why have so many amendments been brought before the House today? This is because of further suggestions which have been made by different stakeholders, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The way the examinations are conducted, the courses run by the Council of Legal Education and what is being proposed have been lengthily debated by the Members of the Opposition.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what are we doing now? When I was qualified I came back to Mauritius and I made it a duty to attend the courses being offered by the Council of Legal Education. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you know what is the situation now. You have taught at the Council of the Legal Education and you know what the situation is. Students are called upon to attend courses in the morning. Very often, they come down to Port Louis and courses are postponed. They have to spend the whole day in Port Louis waiting for the next lecture at three o’clock and, sometimes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when they get to the lecture room at three o’clock, the lecture is again postponed. How many representations have we received to that effect? I can recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I assumed office as Attorney General, that many students came to meet me. I even recalled a lady who had taken examinations on four occasions, but could not get through. She was so depressed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and she wanted a solution to the problem. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, have you ever heard of a professional course being conducted without tutorials, without manuals, without a proper classroom, without a library? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, have you ever heard of a professional course which is simply repeating everything which we have done during your law degree? This is what is happening now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and what we are trying to cure is this particular problem. Now we are suggesting that this course be conducted by the University of Mauritius. The University of Mauritius has already agreed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to run that particular course. They are already in contact with universities abroad to be able to prepare the course so that when these students go through the course they get the proper infrastructure. It has even been suggested that a mock court room be set up for proper development of the skill that you need to practise as a barrister. Look at the subjects, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, which we are prescribing – advocacy, conferencing, opinion writing, drafting, criminal litigation, civil procedure, criminal procedure, evidence, and ethics. These are the subjects which we are prescribing to be taught. We want this course to be a professional course. This is the aim of Government. There have been concerns raised by hon. Members of the Opposition as regards the accredited persons. Maybe rightly so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a fear that there might be a mushrooming of institutions, but we rest assured and for that I disagree with the hon. Third Member for Curepipe and Midlands. There is no attempt at ‘petit copinage’. I have stated it when I replied to the Parliamentary Question in November last year and I reiterate this is a matter that should be above party politics.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Council for Vocational Legal Education will decide whether it has to give authorisation to other accredited persons or not. If the Council for Vocational Legal Education is satisfied that it is only the University of Mauritius that should run the course then so be it. We have not put in the composition of the Vocational Examinations Board a quorum. It can start functioning without any accredited person and even if there is only one accredited person, there can be three persons who represent that accredited person on the Vocational Examinations Board.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was a point raised by the Second Member for Port Louis South and Port Central as to whether the course will start New Year. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we want to move fast, but we have made provision in the Bill that different sections may be proclaimed at different times. Of course, we have to wait whether the University is ready to run the course, it will be in the law now. We have had consultations, they are going ahead with the preparation for the setting up of the centre for professional legal studies. I don’t want to be nasty, but the hon. Second Member for Port Louis South and Port Louis Central did not make any suggestion on the New York Bar. We spoke about another matter which is not proper for me to state in this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was a bit confused about the different stands taken by the hon. Second Member for Port Louis South and Port Louis Central and the hon. Third Member for Curepipe and Midland as regards the organisation of whether aspiring barristers will have to take an examination to be able to practise at the Bar in Mauritius. We are of the view that they should not; in fact, they should be given an induction course to the Mauritian Legal System and this will be catered for by the Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the hon. Third Member for Grand River North West and Port Louis West raised the issue about the ‘Ecole de la Magistrature’. Hon. Minister Mohamed clearly stated ‘What’s in a name”. The Institute for Judicial and Legal Studies has been set up precisely to cater for judicial training, for continuous professional development of Law Practitioners and to run courses for persons who have been qualified in other jurisdictions to follow that induction course.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as regards another point which was raised by the Opposition as to whether the Attorney General will have mainmise on the Council, one point which I have to make is that the Council for Vocational Legal Education is only replacing the Council of Legal Education and not anything else. Of course, the functions have changed, but it is not another institution that is being set up.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that during the preparation of the Bill, the Opposition did not deem it fit to make suggestions which I invited them to make and, of course, I have met hon. Members of this side of the Opposition, because the other side was in Government. We had discussions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when they were asking me why is it that the Bill is not being debated, I told them frankly that we are receiving representations and we will have to take decisions at the level of the Government and then come forward with amendments at Committee Stage. They were fully aware. and I even invited them again informally to make suggestions, but unfortunately, they did not make so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir and even when the Bill was introduced to date there were no suggestions.

Now, as regards the proposed amendments which were circulated on Saturday, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my officers and myself, we stayed till late on Friday to finalise these amendments and I made it a must, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I spoke to the Clerk of the National Assembly personally. I said that I want these proposed amendments to be sent to hon. Members together with the Order Paper. I made that suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because we had the option that this could have been circulated on Monday. I said no, we will finalise it and we will send it together with the Order Paper so that hon. Members of the Opposition get ample time to study the proposed amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, I would like to reiterate that we should not lose focus of the main objectives of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have replied to all the main concerns raised by hon. Members and I again commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and committed.

COMMITTEE STAGE

(The Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

THE LAW PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL (No. X of 2011)

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Section 2 of principal Act amended)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 3, in subclause (e) –

(i) in the definition of “law degree”, by deleting the words “full-time”;

(ii) by deleting the definition of “professional qualification” and replacing it by the following definition –

“professional qualification” means an attestation, in such form as the Council may approve, to the effect that a person who holds a law degree has a qualification as, or equivalent to that of, barrister entitling him to practise in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or France;

(iii) by adding the following new definition –

“Vocational Examinations Board” means the Board set up under section 11B.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Section 4 of principal Act repealed and replaced)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 4, in the proposed section 4 (2)(a), by deleting subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) and replacing them by the following subparagraphs –

(ii) in the case of every other prospective barrister or every prospective attorney –

(A) been awarded a law degree;

(B) completed the vocational course in accordance with section 5; and

(iii) in the case of a prospective notary –

(A) the qualifications referred to in subparagraph (ii);

(B) attained the age of 25 years; and

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Section 5 of principal Act repealed and replaced)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 5, in the proposed section 5 –

(i) by deleting the words “section 4(2)(a)(iii)(B)” and replacing them by the words “section 4(2)(a)(ii)(B)”;

(ii) in paragraph (a), by inserting, after the words “as may be approved by the Council”, the words “and conducted by an accredited person,”;

(iii) by deleting paragraph (b) and replacing it by the following paragraph –

(b) satisfied the Council of his proficiency in the subjects specified in the Second Schedule, following such oral and written examinations as the Vocational Examinations Board may conduct.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (New section 5A inserted in principal Act)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 6, in the proposed section 5A –

(i) in the proposed subsection (1) –

(A) by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and replacing them by the following paragraph –

(a) The Council shall, after consultation with the Bar Council, the Mauritius Law Society Council or the Chamber of Notaries, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining whether a law practitioner is able to provide the required amenities and training to be a pupil master, draw up and keep under review a list of law practitioners of not less than 15 years’ standing, from each of the 3 branches of the profession, who may be pupil masters.

(B) by relettering paragraph (c) as paragraph (b);

(ii) by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and replacing it by the following subsection –

(2) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6), pupillage shall, for the purposes of sections 4 and 21(4), consist –

(a) in the case of a prospective barrister –

(i) who qualified in Mauritius, of attachment to –

(A) the chambers of a barrister for 9 months; or

(B) the chambers of a barrister for 3 months and a barrister in a law firm for 6 months,

and the office of an attorney for 3 months; or

(ii) who qualified as such in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or France –

(A) of attachment for a period of not less than 12 months to the chambers of a barrister of not less than 15 years’ standing in the State in which he qualified; or

(B) of attachment for an aggregate period of not less than 9 months to the chambers of one or more barrister of not less than 15 years’ standing in Mauritius, England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or France, and of attachment for a consecutive period of not less than 3 months to the office of an attorney in Mauritius;

(b) in the case of a prospective attorney, of articleship in, or attachment to, the office of an attorney in Mauritius, or to an attorney in a law firm in Mauritius, for 12 months; and

(c) in the case of a prospective notary, of articleship in, or attachment to, the office of a notary in Mauritius for 24 months,

under the supervision of a pupil master designated by the Council with the consent of the pupil master and the pupil, where pupillage is undergone in Mauritius, and a pupil master proposed by the pupil and approved by the Council, where pupillage is undergone outside Mauritius.

(iii) by deleting the proposed subsection (6) and replacing it by the following subsection –

(6) (a) Every prospective barrister who holds a professional qualification and who undergoes pupillage in Mauritius shall, during his period of pupillage, follow, to the satisfaction of the Council, a course of training conducted by the Institute in such subjects as may, in the Council’s opinion, be necessary to enable him to practise in Mauritius.

(b) Where a prospective barrister who holds a professional qualification undergoes pupillage in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or France, the course of training referred to in paragraph (a) shall be followed before he takes the oath of office to be admitted to practise law in Mauritius.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Section 9A of principal Act amended)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 8, in subclause (c), by deleting the proposed new section 9(A)(2) and replacing it by the following new section 9(A)(2) –

(2) No barrister or attorney shall be appointed pursuant to subsection (1) unless he is, and has been, a barrister or an attorney of not less than 15 years’ standing.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 (New sections 9B and 9C inserted in principal Act)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 9 –

(i) in the proposed new clause 9B, by deleting subclause (3) and replacing it by the following subclause –

(3) Every law practitioner and legal officer shall, in every year, participate in a Continuing Professional Development Programme for the prescribed number of hours unless he is excused by the Chief Justice for reasons such as age or ill health.

(ii) in the proposed new clause 9C, in subclause (1), by adding, after the words “subsection (2)”, the words “, which shall be approved by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission”.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 (Section 10 of principal Act amended)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“by deleting clause 10 and replacing it by the following clause –

Section 10 of principal Act amended

Section 10 of the principal Act is amended by –

(a) repealing subsection (3) and replacing it by the following subsection –

(3) The Supreme Court –

(a) may, on its own motion or an application by the person concerned, and after making such enquiry as it thinks fit –

(i) amend an entry on the Roll;

(ii) remove the name of a person from the Roll following an order made under section 14 or where the person has ceased to be a member of a body referred to in section 3(1)(b);

(b) may cause the name of a person which has been removed from the Roll to be restored on the Roll.

(b) adding the following new subsection –

(4) The Supreme Court shall, for the purposes of this Act, keep a list of –

(a) barristers in private practice;

(b) legal officers;

(d) law practitioners in employment; and

(e) legal consultants.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 (Section 11 of principal Act repealed and replaced)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 11, in the proposed section 11 –

(a) in subsection (2)(a), by adding, after the words “Attorney-General”, the words “and such other persons as he may deem fit”;

(ii) in subsection (3)(a)(ii), by deleting the words “after consultation with” and replacing them by the words “on the recommendation of”;”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 (New section 11A inserted in principal Act)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“by deleting clause 12 and replacing it by the following clause –

New sections 11A and 11B inserted in principal Act

The principal Act is amended by inserting, after section 11, the following new sections –

11A. Secretariat of Council

(1) The Council shall, on such terms and conditions as it may determine, appoint a Secretary to the Council.

(2) (a) There shall be such public officers designated by the Registrar as may, in the opinion of the Council, be necessary to assist the Secretary.

(b) Every person referred to in paragraph (a) shall be under the administrative control of the Secretary.

(3) The Secretary shall –

(a) be the chief executive officer of the Council;

(b) act in accordance with such directions as he may receive from the Chairperson; and

(4) Service of process on or on behalf of the Secretary shall be deemed to be service on or by the Council.

(5) The Council may pay to a person referred to in subsection (2) such allowance as it thinks fit.

11B. Vocational Examinations Board

(1) The Council shall every year set up a Vocational Examinations Board for the purpose of organising and conducting the vocational examinations on behalf of the Council.

(2) The Vocational Examinations Board shall consist of –

(a) 2 representatives of the Council;

(b) a member of the Faculty of Law of the University of Mauritius;

(d) 2 examiners from foreign recognised institutions.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 (Section 12 of principal Act repealed and replaced)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 13, in the proposed section 12 –

(i) by deleting paragraph (b) and replacing it by the following paragraph –

(b) supervise vocational courses and organise, through the Vocational Examinations Board, oral or written examinations for prospective law practitioners;

(ii) in paragraph (c), by deleting the words “law firms, and of law practitioners of not less than 15 years’ standing, which or” and replacing them by the words “law practitioners of not less than 15 years’ standing”;”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 (New section 12A inserted in principal Act)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 14, in the proposed new clause 12A, in subclause (7)(b), by deleting the words “or the holding of examinations”;”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Section 21 of principal Act amended)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 15, in the proposed new section 21(4)(a), by inserting, after the words “6 months of pupillage may”, the words “, in the presence of his pupil master, ”;”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 (Transitional provision and savings)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in clause 20 (2), by deleting the words “shall, the commencement of this Act” and replacing them by the following words “before the commencement of this Act shall, at the commencement of this Act”;”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 (Commencement)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“by deleting clause 21 and replacing it by the following clause –

Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

(2) Different dates may be fixed for the coming into operation of different sections of this Act.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The First Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Second Schedule (as proposed)

Motion made and question proposed: “that the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill”.

Mr Varma: Mr Chairperson, I move in terms of the amendment circulated that –

“in the Schedule, in the proposed new Second Schedule –

(i) in Part ll –

(A) by deleting the following subject –

Dispute resolution

(B) by inserting, after the subject “Civil Procedure”, the following subject –

Commercial and business law

Family law

(ii) in Part lll, by inserting, after the subject “Rédaction des actes”, the following subject –

Responsabilité notariale”

Amendment agreed to.

The Second Schedule (as amended) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The title and enacting clause were agreed to.

The Bill, as amended, was agreed to.

On the Assembly resuming with the Deputy Speaker in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker reported accordingly.

Third Reading

On motion made and seconded, the Law Practitioners (Amendment) Bill (No. X of 2011) was read the third time and passed.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply