The Ho Chi Minh City Bar Association has removed the names of lawyers Dang Dinh Manh and Nguyen Van Mieng from its list of members, according to the Ho Chi Minh City Law Newspaper.
The two had not paid membership fees for many years, the paper said in its Wednesday edition, adding that the decision to suspend them came into effect on April 5.
Hinting at another reason for the Bar Association’s decision the paper added that the two lawyers had previously defended six members of the Peng Lei Buddhist House – or Tinh That Bong Lai – who were sentenced in 2022 to a combined 23 years and six months in prison on charges of “abusing democratic freedoms” under Article 331 of the Criminal Code.
Lawyer Nguyen Van Mieng told Radio Free Asia he was not surprised by the decision and noted that the Bar Association has had ongoing problems with members not paying union dues. However, he said he believed that was not the main reason for them canceling his membership.
“In Vietnam, practicing lawyers are required to participate in the bar associations of provinces and cities. Everyone must belong to a certain bar association. Therefore, when the bar association removes our names, it means we are no longer qualified to practice law in Vietnam even though we are still lawyers,” he said.
“The independence of bar associations is almost non-existent. The cases we work on related to politics and democratic freedoms are monitored and the Bar Association, as a professional organization, is supposed to protect us in our activities but they are an extended arm of the security agency, or of other legal agencies.”
He said it was clear that the real reason for removing his name from the Bar Association was to clear the way for his prosecution under Article 331 in connection with the Tinh That Bong Lai case.
ICJ submits open letter 2 #Vietnam 🇻🇳 Ministry of Justice+Ministry of Public Security to denounce ongoing criminal investigation of #HumanRightsLawyer Dang Dinh Manh under article 331/🇻🇳PenalCode in line with his legitimate exercise of prof. duties & right to #FreedomOfExpressionpic.twitter.com/Fk0KOKWe4z
Want evidence the #Vietnam judicial system is a total joke? Just look at defense lawyers Dang Dinh Manh & Dao Kim Lan being charged for using their "democratic rights"! Free & fair trial possible? Nope! How can @MOFAVietNam defend this travesty of justice? https://t.co/eqj7fOHOWXpic.twitter.com/fGjcaWDmFj
Now public: I wrote to #Vietnam about the launch of a criminal investigation against human rights lawyer Dang Dinh Manh, allegedly in relation to legal services he provides. Lawyers must not be sanctioned for undertaking professional duties. Full letter: https://t.co/mPVrOMJqwW
— Margaret Satterthwaite (@SRjudgeslawyers) May 31, 2023
La @ICJ_org reitera su preocupación de que las investigaciones penales indebidas contra Dang Dinh Manh y Nguyen Van Mieng tengan como objetivo menoscabar su trabajo como abogados y su ejercicio del derecho a la libertad de expresión. pic.twitter.com/1vIHqPDEGg
Lawyers for Lawyers, SHOAA for Human Rights and the Law Society of England and Wales have issued a joing statement expressing their grave concern regarding the escalation of prosecutions against lawyers for their work defending people involved in the Hirak movement in Algeria.
Following 2019 and the first wave of arrests of peaceful Hirak demonstrators, lawyers in Algeria have formed “The Collective for the Defense of Hirak Detainees”. However, these lawyers have since faced arbitrary arrests, detentions and prosecutions due to their human rights work. Such persecutions have been facilitated by the introduction of several legal measures that criminalise the legitimate work of lawyers and human rights activists.
This series of events underscores the challenges faced by lawyers in Algeria as they discharge their professional duties and exercise their freedom of expression, it highlights the critical importance of upholding the principles outlined in the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
Following the initial wave of arrests of peaceful Hirak demonstrators in 2019, lawyers formed “The Collective for the Defense of Hirak Detainees” to provide legal assistance to those arbitrarily arrested, detained, and prosecuted. However, these lawyers have faced escalating harassment from authorities, ranging from surveillance and obstruction to criminal prosecutions, arbitrary arrests, and imprisonment. This harassment has severely impacted their ability to serve the public and discuss human rights issues openly, leading to a significant reduction in the number of lawyers involved in defending human rights.
Several lawyers have faced prosecution and imprisonment due to their involvement in the Collective and their legitimate work advocating for fair trials and human rights.
بيان مشترك حول الاستهداف المتصاعد للمحامين والتهديدات لاستقلال القضاء في الجزائر:
📝أصدرت كل من منظمة “محامون من أجل المحامين”، ومنظمة “شعاع لحقوق الإنسان”، و”جمعية القانون في إنجلترا وويلز، بيانا مشتركا حول الاستهداف المتصاعد للمحامين والتهديدات لاستقلال القضاء في الجزائر، وتم… pic.twitter.com/DCi6QtCv4n
On March 26, 2024, New York County Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump, issued a restraining (i.e., “gag”) order limiting former President Trump from, among other things:
Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) members of the court’s staff and the District Attorney, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result.[1]
In making this order, the Court expressly considered the former President’s argument that as the “presumptive Republican nominee and leading candidate in the 2024 election he must have unfettered access to the voting public to respond to attacks from political opponents and to criticize these public figures.”[2]
Justice Merchan’s gag order finds that the former President’s “extrajudicial statements went far beyond defending himself against attacks by public figures,” and that the former President’s statements were “threatening, inflammatory, denigrating, and [that] the targets of his statements ranged from local and federal officials, court and court staff, prosecutors and staff assigned to the cases, and private individuals including grand jurors performing their civic duty,” which resulted in fear on the part of targeted individuals and increased security resources needed to protect certain individuals and family members thereof.[3]
This gag order is similar to orders issued by New York state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron[4] and United States District Judge Tanya Chutkan.[5] Both prior orders were upheld on appeal.[6]
On March 27, 2024, notwithstanding the Court’s prior findings, the former President used social media to baselessly accuse Justice Merchan of bias vis-à-vis statements falsely attributed to Justice Merchan’s daughter.[7] That same day, New York State’s Office of Court Administration announced that the statements the former President was attributing to Justice Merchan’s daughter were investigated, and that the investigation concluded, “[t]he X, formerly Twitter, account being attributed to Judge Merchan’s daughter no longer belongs to her,” and that “it is not linked to her email address, nor has she posted under that screen name since she deleted the account. Rather, it represents the reconstitution, last April, and manipulation of an account she long ago abandoned.”[8]
[…]
In light of the foregoing, the New York City Bar Association expresses its unequivocal support for the way in which Justice Merchan is handling this issue. Justice Merchan’s actions in this proceeding are consistent with this state’s ethics rules and well settled national and international ethics requirements, by which the dignity and independence of the judiciary are maintained.[20]
The former President’s decision, on the eve of trial, to broadcast baseless claims that have previously been the subject of a motion for recusal—and which may be covered by the current gag order’s prohibition on statements made about family members of court staff—appear to be an attempt to derail the mechanics of the judicial process by casting aspersions against a non-party to the action for statements that an investigation determined were falsely attributed to her and serve only to harass the judge.[21]
The integrity of the judicial process rests upon the ability to restrict intimidating and harassing behavior that interferes with or otherwise threatens the judicial process in keeping with the fundamental principles of independence and the adherence to ethical obligations. We call on the former President and his attorneys to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
Our courts and judges are under attack. National leaders and private citizens are making false statements and scurrilous accusations against judges for partisan, personal gain. Read today's statement from @ABAPresident Mary Smith. https://t.co/YdeIon1vdJ
IAPL Monitoring Committee on Attacks on Lawyers 