The SIG’s interference in unions’ activities threatens their independence and undermines their ability to represent members’ interests freely
On 10 August 2024, a violent quarrel erupted during the meeting of the general assembly of the Free Bar Association, Aleppo branch, held in Afrin at the headquarters of the Turkish Gaziantep University. The main point of contention was the outcome of the July 2023 elections, which had been controversial due to concerns about their integrity, leading to a division within the Association. The meeting was disrupted by physical altercations and verbal insults among the lawyers, prompting police intervention to restore order. After the situation calmed down, the meeting resumed, and several decisions were made, including setting the date for the Aleppo Bar Association Council elections on 15 October 2024 and approving electronic voting.
Tensions arose when several lawyers questioned the legitimacy of the current council, alleging that it is supported by the Syrian Interim Government (SIG) and influenced by foreign powers. Meanwhile, others called for confirmation regarding the legitimacy of the elections. This conflict is part of a larger crisis affecting the Free Bar Association, particularly due to the SIG’s involvement in its affairs. These disputes reflect differing legal perspectives within the Association and are connected to the broader political tensions in northwestern Syria. In this region, the SIG seeks to bolster its authority and expand its influence, utilizing the military power of the Turkish occupation along with Turkish-supported factions of the Syrian National Army (SNA). Additionally, the SIG is trying to legitimize its control through electoral processes and organizational decisions.
The present paper summarizes conflicts within the Free Bar Association and the SIG’s interference in its activities. It also outlines the Turkish state’s responsibilities and discusses significant Syrian and international laws concerning the organization and independence of the syndicates.
The Free Bar Association in Syria was established in 2019 in response to the large-scale displacement operations conducted by the Syrian government during 2017 and 2018. Opposition lawyers recognized the need for an organization to coordinate their efforts and advocate for their rights. The Association was launched across nine governorates, including Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Latakia, Damascus and its countryside, Daraa, Raqqa, al-Hasakah, and Deir ez-Zor.
Disagreements and Divisions within the Association over Election Results
On 24 May 2023, the Central Free Bar Association issued Decision No. 32, setting the Aleppo branch council elections date for 24 June 2023. However, tensions escalated when the Aleppo branch, facing internal divisions, announced the postponement of the elections to 8 July 2023 and then again to 15 July 2023 due to the absence of some lawyers who were performing the Hajj pilgrimage.
On 9 July the Aleppo branch of the Free Bar Association issued Decision No. 210 to open four ballot boxes for the elections: a central box in the city of A’zaz, two boxes in the cities of Jarabulus and al-Bab inside Syria, and another box in Türkiye’s Gaziantep, as there are a significant number of Syrian lawyers in the diaspora. This decision was made after debates about using electronic voting, which some groups opposed in favor of physical voting with multiple ballot boxes. However, some lawyers objected to this distribution and insisted on using a single ballot box at the main Association headquarters in A’zaz to ensure the fairness of the electoral process.
In response to the ongoing dispute, several members of the Aleppo branch council and the Association’s general assembly announced their boycott of the elections scheduled for 15 July 2023. They cited repeated law violations by the acting council, such as setting up ballot boxes that contradict internal regulations and decisions of the General Conference and the General Assembly. Furthermore, lawyers pointed out that the council had exceeded its legal term, and its continued decision-making rendered it illegitimate. As a result, they refused to participate in the announced elections, although some later retracted their decision.
[…]
