How Lawyers Defended the Last Vestiges of Moldova’s Judiciary Independence

Due to the de facto subordination of the prosecution and judicial system to the ruling regime, experts this year were skeptical about the prospects of resistance from the bar. However, the pre-election period allowed our lawyers to consolidate and force the country’s leadership to back down. It can be said that on the evening of July 28, a small hope for justice was born in the hearts of the numerous conglomerate of lawyers. And it was the lawyers who gave this hope, as they unanimously supported the extension of the nationwide strike against the blatant abuse of power by the authorities. I would like to remind that on July 10, on the last day of their mandate, PAS deputies, in their typical manner – without any prior notice or discussions – amended the law on advocacy, introducing representatives of the Ministry of Justice into the bodies of self-government for lawyers. Everything was done like a carbon copy of the process that stripped the judiciary and prosecution of their independence. First, “yellow” functionaries are planted into the governing bodies, and then a purge of undesirable elements takes place. The “divide and conquer” tactic was also actively applied. Some judges and prosecutors were promised high salaries and rapid career advancement, while others faced dismissal and various other problems. Advocates for the rule of law, such as Alexei Panis and Victoria Fortuna, resisted and caused scandals, but they were unable to rally their colleagues to defend their independence. The lawyers almost succeeded as well. During the years of PAS rule, amendments have been made several times to the regulations governing their work in order to gain control over legal practice. One can recall how government representatives, from the president to the deputies, as well as various loyal experts and media outlets, branded lawyers for delaying judicial reform, for sabotaging high-profile corruption and criminal cases, and even for the very act of defending individuals accused of wrongdoing. “Devil's advocates” – no less. Often, they were simply accused of colluding with their clients and labeled as criminals. Just recently, the president herself classified lawyers as part of the criminal community. However, at times they would bite back. In late May, Igor Hlopetchi, who defended Maia Sandu’s fellow villager in court, demanded the president’s hospitalization for a psychiatric evaluation. He also informed the public of evidence suggesting that Sandu’s grandfather was a “collaborator and informer.” It’s clear that such statements couldn’t go unnoticed. The new offensive this summer, as usual, was cloaked in the guise of Eurointegration. Supposedly, the authorities were concerned about the situation of Moldovan lawyers who couldn’t practice in EU countries, and they proactively proposed to transpose European norms into local legislation. Such noble motives initially received support, but in the end, PAS deputies cynically “betrayed” the legal defenders, embedding a mechanism for their lustration into the new law. The Ministry of Justice was for the first time granted the right to participate in the work of commissions for licensing legal practice, as well as for ethics and discipline within the Bar Association. These bodies are responsible for administering qualification exams, registering internships, resolving professional disputes, overseeing adherence to ethical standards, and imposing measures against violators. This was a classic example of embedding scandalous elements like “vetting” and “pre-vetting” into the legal system, while simultaneously removing the current leadership of the self-governing bodies of the legal community. In response, the lawyers revolted and threatened to strike, demanding that the president refuse to sign the law passed by the deputies. Facing silence and disregard, they moved to more active measures and began their strike on July 15. The Bar Association raised the banner in defense of the “spirit of independence, collegiality, and solidarity of the legal profession” and almost paralyzed the justice system across the country. The authorities’ attempts to smooth things over without media attention led to nothing. After the strike began, they started defending their decision on TV screens and continued the campaign against the lawyers. For example, Igor Grosu categorically stated that the Bar Association was awaiting the fate of reformed self-governing structures in the judiciary and prosecution, where party-appointed individuals were actively purging the system of undesirables. The bar association held an extraordinary congress, and on July 28, by a majority vote (827), supported the extension of the nationwide, full-scale strike. Another 591 congress participants expressed their willingness to strike, with the possibility of handling urgent cases in court. Thus, a rather narrow issue suddenly escalated into a full-fledged political scandal, threatening the ruling party with very real problems in the midst of the election campaign. Realizing the risks, the authorities ultimately conceded. After 18 days of silence, the presidency announced that Sandu had refused to promulgate the new law. The current regime found itself in a rather awkward position, but on the other hand, it prevented the escalation of yet another political crisis. The lawyers, for their part, immediately ended the strike, showing everyone before the elections that real, albeit short-lived, opposition to the authorities and defense of what remained of the country’s judicial independence was possible. The key to their success was the display of solidarity and principle – qualities that are still lacking in our opposition.