Moroccan bar associations have opened a prolonged dispute with the Justice Ministry over a draft bill that would overhaul rules governing the legal profession. Lawyers argue the proposed changes disregard established practice, sideline them from shaping the law and risk shifting the balance of power between the profession and the state.
To signal their opposition, groups of lawyers gathered in front of Parliament in Rabat this week and began what they describe as an open‑ended sit‑in. They portray this protest as one step in a broader campaign of mobilization coordinated by the national bar association. The action comes after a parliamentary committee on justice and human rights approved the bill in a second reading, a stage lawyers view as confirmation that the text is advancing despite their objections.
In its call to protest, the national bar association urged lawyers to demonstrate in defense of the profession’s independence, the preservation of its mission and its adherence to constitutional and institutional principles. Veteran figures from bar leadership, including past bar presidents, joined the gathering to underscore the seriousness of the moment.
Throughout the sit‑in, speakers tied the draft law to broader questions about the justice system. They argued that safeguards for the legal profession are inseparable from safeguards for fair trial rights, and they framed the autonomy of the defense as a necessary protection for citizens appearing before the courts.
One bar leader from Rabat told local media that the protest shows the depth of lawyers’ dissatisfaction with the bill. In his view, the text does not match the country’s main policy directions and breaks with institutional developments of the past decade. He pointed to the 2011 Constitution, royal speeches, reforms of the judicial authority and the public prosecutor’s office, and the national charter for justice reform as reference points he believes are not reflected in the draft.
He also emphasized that the debate extends beyond internal professional organization. He described the stance taken by lawyers as both a defense of their role and a defense of citizens’ access to counsel that is independent and not subject to pressure. He linked the confrontation to concerns about Morocco’s external image, saying he does not want the country to be singled out for weak guarantees of professional independence.
A former bar president from Casablanca situated the sit‑in within a sequence of actions decided by the national association. He recalled that, in earlier rounds of legislative change, lawyers themselves drafted bills concerning their profession and submitted them to the ministry, followed by detailed discussions on each article until a consensus text emerged. He said the current situation is different because, for the first time, the ministry and the present government prepared the draft without involving the profession.
Addressing the impact of strikes and postponed hearings, this former bar leader argued that responsibility for disruptions lies with the authorities that introduced the bill, not with lawyers. He warned that the text could affect litigants over long periods and described the protest as a way to carry the concerns of citizens, litigants and detainees, while also protecting Morocco’s international reputation. He added that continuing the mobilization is part of lawyers’ professional duty and said that, after an earlier gathering, they chose to demonstrate directly in front of Parliament to fully assume their role in defending the profession. In his view, the Justice Ministry and the current government bear direct responsibility for the protests and for the slowdown observed in court activity.
Other lawyers described the moment in similar terms. A member of the Rabat bar called this stage “the beginning of an escalation without precedent” in the history of the profession, which he associates with what he sees as a major shift in how legislation is made. He characterized the version of the bill adopted by the upper house of Parliament as flawed and said it reflects an intent to weaken the profession’s independence and the safeguards around it, arguing that this contradicts international principles on the role of lawyers.
From Marrakech, another lawyer read the sit‑in as evidence of a high level of anger within the profession. He attributed this to parliamentary language that, in his assessment, does not sufficiently recognize the profession’s history or the efforts of lawyers. He also placed the reform in a wider context, saying that constraints affecting the legal profession are emerging alongside developments touching civil liberties, human rights and the press, and he warned that, over time, this could erode society’s right to defense and to a fair trial.
