|
The lawyers U Khin Maung Shein and U Aung Thein
were sent a copy of an order
disbarring them from practice as lawyers. Ironically, the law revoked
their licences under terms of a law that also should entitle them to
tribunal hearings, and again, guarantees the right to present a defence
in any disciplinary proceedings, which the two were denied.
U Aung Thein and U Khin Maung Shein are
both advocates of long experience who in 2008 were representing many
defendants in criminal cases arising from the protests of September 2007,
including the defendants in Felony Nos. 307-311/2008 before Judge Daw Aye
Myaing of the Hlaing Township Court. At the hearing of 6 October 2008 one
of the defendants, speaking on behalf of the others, informed the court
that as they "no longer had faith in the judicial process" that
they would withdraw the power of attorney from the two lawyers. At the
hearing of October 20 Khin Maung Shein in the courtroom gave the
submissions to withdraw power of attorney. The defendants read the
documents thoroughly and each signed them. The two attorneys also had
their signatures affixed. Then the documents were submitted to the court.
At that time the judge said that the remark that the defendants "no
longer had faith in the judicial process" had not been made orally
at the earlier hearing and said that the lawyers had themselves inserted
it.
The Hlaing Township Court
then made an application to the Supreme Court under section 3 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, that, contempt of court may be punished
with imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, in
Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 99/2008, Daw Naw Than Than Aye
applicant. The aforesaid act has no provisions in it at all to define the
circumstances or manner in which contempt may be proven or otherwise.
On 6 November 2008 the
Supreme Court found the two advocates guilty of contempt of court and
sentenced them to four months' imprisonment each, despite its own
apparent uncertainty about what had transpired.
After their release on 6
March 2009, the two lawyers went back to work but on 15 May 2009 they
were sent copies of Supreme Court Order No. 46 /2009, disbarring them
from practice.
Ironically, the order
dismissing them from service cited section 10(1) of the Bar Council Act
1926, authorizing the court to remove lawyers found guilty of misconduct.
The same law also very clearly lays down the procedure for holding a
tribunal to investigate misconduct prior to suspension or removal,
including, in section 12(3), that the court shall inform the accused
advocate of the date of hearing and "shall afford the advocate
concerned... an opportunity of being heard before orders are passed in
the case". None of that happened in this case.
ACTION REQUESTED :
Please write to the persons
listed below to call for a review of the procedure to revoke the two
lawyers' licences. Please note that for the purpose of the letter, the
country should be referred to by its official title of Myanmar, rather
than Burma, and Rangoon should be Yangon.
Please be informed that the
AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on
Myanmar and independence of judges and lawyers as well as the UN Special
Representative on human rights defenders, and the regional human rights
office for Southeast Asia, calling for interventions into this case.
LETTER:
Dear ___________,
MYANMAR: Revocation of lawyers'
licences not in accordance with law
Lawyers whose licences revoked:
1. U Aung Thein, Advocate No. 2703, residing in Ward 8, Thingangyun
Township, Yangon
2. U Khin Maung Shein, Advocate No. 4660, residing in Bogone Ward, Insein
Township, Yangon
Under: Supreme Court Order No. 46/2009, signed by Than Myaing,
Director; dated 15 May 2009
I regret to learn that after four
months' unjust and illegal imprisonment, two Supreme Court advocates in
Myanmar have had their licences revoked, and I call on you to review the
allegations against them and reinstate their rights to practice law.
Briefly, I am aware that U Aung Thein
and U Khin Maung Shein are both advocates of long experience who in 2008
were representing many defendants in criminal cases arising from the
protests of September 2007, including the defendants in Felony Nos.
307-311/2008 before Judge Daw Aye Myaing of the Hlaing Township Court. At
the hearing of 6 October 2008 one of the defendants, speaking on behalf
of the others, informed the court that as they "no longer had faith
in the judicial process" that they would withdraw the power of
attorney from the two lawyers. At the hearing of October 20 Khin Maung
Shein in the courtroom gave the submissions to withdraw power of
attorney. The defendants read the documents thoroughly and each signed them.
The two attorneys also had their signatures affixed. Then the documents
were submitted to the court. At that time the judge said that the remark
that the defendants "no longer had faith in the judicial
process" had not been made orally at the earlier hearing and said
that the lawyers had themselves inserted it.
The Hlaing Township Court then made an
application to the Supreme Court under section 3 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1926, that, contempt of court may be punished with
imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, in Miscellaneous
Criminal Application No. 99/2008, Daw Naw Than Than Aye applicant. The
aforesaid act has no provisions in it at all to define the circumstances
or manner in which contempt may be proven or otherwise.
On 6 November 2008 the Supreme Court
found the two advocates guilty of contempt of court and sentenced them to
four months' imprisonment each, despite its own apparent uncertainty
about what had transpired.
After their release on 6 March 2009,
the two lawyers went back to work but on 15 May 2009 they were sent
copies of Supreme Court Order No. 46 /2009, disbarring them from
practice.
Ironically, the order dismissing them
from service cited section 10(1) of the Bar Council Act 1926, authorizing
the court to remove lawyers found guilty of misconduct. The same law also
very clearly lays down the procedure for holding a tribunal to
investigate misconduct prior to suspension or removal, including, in
section 12(3), that the court shall inform the accused advocate of the date
of hearing and "shall afford the advocate concerned... an
opportunity of being heard before orders are passed in the case".
None of that happened in this case.
I urge the authorities in Myanmar to
review as a matter of urgency the revoking of these two lawyers'
licences, with a view to reinstating them to the profession or at very
least affording them the fair hearing to which they are undeniably
entitled but have so far been denied.
Yours sincerely
PLEASE
SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Maj-Gen.
Maung Oo
Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs
Office No. 10
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 412 079/ 549 393/ 549 663
Fax: +95 67 412 439
2. Lt-Gen.
Thein Sein
Prime Minister
c/o Ministry of Defence
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 1 372 681
Fax: + 95 1 652 624
3. U Aung
Toe
Chief Justice
Office of the Supreme Court
Office No. 24
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: + 95 67 404 080/ 071/ 078/ 067 or + 95 1 372 145
Fax: + 95 67 404 059
4. U Aye
Maung
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Office No. 25
Naypyitaw
MYANMAR
Tel: +95 67 404 088/ 090/ 092/ 094/ 097
Fax: +95 67 404 146/ 106
TAKE ACTION NOW
.
|
bservatory for Defence
Rights and attacks against lawyers
