In a recent development, eight members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) have expressed their strong opposition to proposed changes aimed at making the council’s discussions and proceedings confidential. These members believe that the council, as a regulatory body representing the legal community, should operate with transparency.
Opposition to Confidentiality Amendments
The dissenting PBC members, including Abid Shahid Zuberi, Muhammad Maqsood Buttar, and others, have formally communicated their concerns in a letter to the PBC secretary. They argue that the council’s proceedings should be open to scrutiny by the entire legal fraternity and the public, given that the PBC is an elected body.
“We are not a private club or a secretive government agency,” stated the letter, which was also shared with Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, the ex-officio chairman of the PBC. The members emphasized that transparency should be the default, allowing more than 100,000 lawyers and the general public to monitor the council’s activities.
Details of Proposed Rule Change
The PBC is considering amending Rule 97 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, by introducing Rule 97-A. This new rule would classify all council proceedings and related activities as confidential, restricting their disclosure without explicit authorization.
The proposed amendment would cover various forms of records, including electronic communications and digital files, making it mandatory for PBC members and staff to maintain confidentiality. The members opposing the amendments argue that such measures are unnecessary and undermine the council’s role as a representative body.
Circular Resolution and Emergency Justification
The eight members have also criticized the method of attempting to amend the rules via circular resolution, a process intended for emergencies. They pointed out that no “emergency” has been justified for bypassing a full council meeting where discussions could take place.
They raised concerns about the trend of making significant rule changes without proper debate, emphasizing that circular resolutions should not replace comprehensive meetings. The members assert that the rules committee lacks authority to decide on convening full council meetings or determining emergencies.
Call for Transparency and Legal Concerns
The letter concludes by urging other PBC members to recognize their duty to maintain transparency. It suggests that while there may be exceptions for sensitive cases, the general rule must be openness.
Furthermore, the members argue that the proposed amendments violate constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and the right to information, as outlined in Articles 19 and 19-A of the Constitution. They firmly reject the amendments, advocating for a transparent approach to the council’s operations.
