Exodus of black advocates averted after motion defeated

An ‘attack’ on black advocates has been averted following a failed motion to end the 50/50 co-governance with the Advocates for Transformation (AFT) within the Pretoria Society of Advocates (PSA), says a report in The Star. It says more than 100 black advocates affiliated with the AFT were at risk of losing power within the Pretoria Bar Council after three of their PSA colleagues, MC Maritz, NGD Maritz and E Furstenburg, tabled a motion to end the co-governance arrangement, initiated to end the profession’s ‘notorious racist tag’. The report points out the arrangement began in 2004 when the Pretoria Bar had only 42 black advocates, who were outnumbered by more than 400 white members, according to AFT Pretoria branch chairperson, Advocate Hlalele Molotsi. Molotsi reportedly told The Star that, had the motion – heard on Thursday at the PSA’s annual meeting in Pretoria – passed, 103 AFT members would have considered leaving the PSA because it would have meant a return to the era of white domination within the society. ‘There are currently 222 black advocates in the PSA and 470 white members. This means that, had this irrational motion passed, the Pretoria Bar would have been dominated by white members. But as the AFT we are encouraged by the support we received from many white colleagues of ours, who also saw the irrationality of the motion to end the 50/50 governance arrangement,’ Molotsi said.

The General Council of the Bar (GCB) slammed the motion tabled by the three PSA advocates as ‘retrogressive’. The GCB’s views were expressed in a scathing letter signed by its chairperson, Advocate Craig Watt-Pringle, and addressed to the PSA’s Advocate McCaps Motimele a day ahead of the meeting. ‘As you will be aware, the 50/50 principle is fundamentally a measure intended to compensate for the fact that due to our country’s historical legacy of white privilege, institutionalised discrimination and inequality, black members are still in the minority at the major Bars, which would not have been the case but for historical inequality. In the circumstances, the GCB views the proposed amendments, insofar as they seek to abolish the 50/50 arrangement, as a significant retrogressive move away from effective transformation at the Bar,’ Watt-Pringle wrote, according to The Star. ‘The GCB is also concerned that many of the transformative gains achieved over the years may be lost and that this proposal may even lead to serious division within the ranks of its members,’ he added.