The Macau Bar Association (AAM, in the portuguese abbreviation) has expressed support for the National Security Commission bill, which was passed on the 19th, arguing that the conditions imposed on the appointment of lawyers create a “protective barrier” for national security.
The AAM “firmly defends and supports” the passage of the Safeguarding National Security Commission (CDSE, in the portuguese abbreviation) bill, which “is of great importance for strengthening the national security barrier in Macau,” the association wrote in a statement.
At a time when “the great cause of ‘one country, two systems’ is entering a new phase and changes in the international landscape are becoming apparent,” Macau faces “challenges in the realm of national security defense,” the statement reads.
Thus, the AAM continued, “strengthening the top-level structure of the national security defense system, as well as drafting the CDSE law and the accompanying administrative regulations on the organization and operation of the CDSE secretariat, are timely, necessary, and imminent.” These legislative initiatives, the statement noted, “can effectively prevent and contain external interference.”
Read also: Macau Legislative Assembly unanimously passes National Security Commission bill
Approved yesterday in committee, the bill received the green light from the local parliament in 20 minutes, with all articles passed unanimously.
The law stipulates that the selection of a lawyer for national security cases is subject to a judge’s approval, who refers the request to the CDSE so that it may issue a binding opinion that cannot be appealed.
In the statement, the AAM emphasizes that this special authorization regime and the judge’s ability to decide whether trials are held behind closed doors create “a protective barrier for national security, ensuring that there is no risk to national security during the course of legal proceedings.”
“This system does not deprive the parties of their right to defense, nor does it affect the professional qualifications of attorneys (…) as these amendments are necessary and reasonable,” it states. Analysts interviewed in February by Lusa consider the rule unconstitutional.
Read also: Macau should remain “open” to foreign talent
Luís Almeida Pinto, a lawyer based in the city, cited the Basic Law – Macau’s mini-constitution – which guarantees “access to justice, to the courts, and to legal counsel in the defense of one’s legitimate rights and interests.”
In addition to being “a violation of the Basic Law,” which has constitutional force in Macau, Pedro Leal, who has been practicing law in the region for decades, pointed out “a clear conflict” with “the decree regulating the Bar Association and the Statute of the Attorney” itself, regarding the free choice of a defense attorney.
Almeida Pinto also deemed “the proposed regime” for “the investigation of lawyers” to be “unacceptable.” This is because, attached to the request made by the representatives to the judge, must be, among other elements, information regarding the lawyer’s household members, nationality, and connections with organizations or individuals abroad. This amounts to a “true investigation into one’s personal life,” he notes.
This law will strengthen the CDSE, established in 2018 to support the head of government in making decisions regarding China’s national security. The agency will now assess risks to national security in the areas of education, culture, and the economy, in addition to its political functions – such as evaluating the qualifications, suitability, and “patriotism” of candidates for positions of power in Macau.
The AAM stated in February that only its leadership had been consulted and had issued an opinion on the proposed law to the committee. Speaking to the public broadcaster Teledifusão de Macau (TDM), the AAM president indicated that the opinion had been issued even before the final draft was released.
The statements were made after legal experts had warned, even before the bill’s general approval, that the government was required to consult the AAM on this legislative step. Until that point, neither the government nor the association had mentioned any consultation or opinion.
