Security Decree 2026, so migrants' lawyers risk independence

The security law decrees are repeated with yearly constancy and the only security they provide concerns the knowledge that there will be at least some provisions outside the constitutional perimeter.

This daunting treasure hunt is particularly easy for the 'Security Decree 2026' thanks to the majority's latest regulatory 'stunt'. Article 30 bis of the decree-law, which has already been approved in the Senate and which by 25 April (the little devil of the calendar seems to have fun with anniversaries), must be definitively converted by the Chamber of Deputies on pain of forfeiture, includes a provision that literally leaves one baffled, as the National Association of Magistrates has written.

It is stipulated that if a migrant person accepts repatriation and is really then deported, his or her lawyer, duly appointed, can receive the equivalent in money of what the state would have paid by law to his or her client for the first expenses.

Such a provision, even before clashing head-on with more than one constitutional principle, constitutes a true cultural scandal. The role of the lawyer, in any legal system that wishes to call itself civil, even before being democratic, is characterised by an intangible rule: the lawyer acts solely and exclusively in the interest of the client, seeking to obtain, in compliance with the substantive and procedural rules, the best result from the client's point of view. The professional must have no other aim and may not take on roles that are at odds with this objective, otherwise he or she risks committing the offence of unfaithful patronage.

The amendment approved by the Senate appears to be precisely an apologia for unfaithful patronage, as the Union of Criminal Chambers immediately noted. But, beyond the (happy) joke, with this precept the legislature shows that it is ignoring, or wants to fibrillate to a standstill, the heart of the defence function. With the proposal to remunerate the lawyer with the money that would have been due to his client, the state is attempting, in an even vulgar manner, to interject itself into the professional relationship of trust, enticing the lawyer with the promise of remuneration if the client behaves in line with the interests of the current political majority.