In an interview with Rooz, Nemat Ahmadi, the prominent Iranian lawyer, explains about the recent government pressures on Iranian Bar Association (IBA). Here is the interview:

Rooz (R): In your opinion, why is the regime inclined to restrict the activities of the IBA?

Nemat Ahmadi (NA): This inclination exists with regard to most groups, and is not restricted to the IBA. Essentially, the government does not get along well with independent organizations.

R: But this is more pronounced in the case of the IBA, is it not?

NA: Yes, this case is a little different. Lawyers are responsible for defending individuals or entities against given charges. We have already passed times – from 3 decades prior to the Revolution and thereafter – when lawyers were prohibited from even attending court proceeding. Why? Because that would have changed the balance of information to the advantage of lawyers…. Essentially, we have two legal systems: eliminatory or defensive. In eliminatory systems, the accused can stay silent from the moment of arrest because he might harm himself, and he has access to a lawyer from the very beginning. Iran, however, uses a defensive system. From the moment of the arrest, the accused is a defenseless person kept by the judiciary in a martial-like environment.

The judiciary then puts pressure on the accused person to extract what it needs from him. Lawyers cannot do anything up to this point. In fact, Article 128 states that judges can prohibit lawyers from entering the courtroom, should that be deemed necessary. Therefore, lawyers have no role in the fact-finding process in Iran. On the other hand, in my opinion, the judiciary tries to blame the IBA for a lot of its own executive shortcomings and failures. The judiciary should not blame the IBA for the high volume of cases or slow processing times, and should instead focus on reforming itself. Most importantly, such pressures undermine the international reputation of the IBA. In any case, they try to bring the organization under their control.

There was a proposed bill to merge the bar associations with those of experts and consultants, and create one center for the enhancement of lawyers, consultants and experts. That bill did not receive enough votes. The bill would have required the head of the judiciary to issue certificates for lawyers. What happens to a lawyer’s independence? If a lawyer is to receive his certificate from the head of the judiciary, then he should go and become a judge! A lawyer must be free, independent, and untied to the government. That wasn’t a bill for enhancement; it was a bill for dissolving the IBA.

R: Apparently there is another bill circulating around…

NA: A few days ago, Amol’s representative in the Majlis [Parliament], Mr. Yousefian, who was previously the educational director for the judiciary, announced that there is a bill under way which has been drafted by representatives from Majlis, the judiciary, and the IBA. But IBA members do not recall having picked representatives!