Lawyers’ opinions diverge over judicial ‘clash of the titans’

As the exchange of accusations and criticism between veteran Macau lawyer and president of the Macau Lawyers Association (AAM) Jorge Neto Valente, and the president of the Court of Final Appeal (TUI), Sam Hou Fai, continues in a heated debate, some local lawyers have expressed opinions on the topic.
Contacted by the Times, several legal practitioners chose not to state an opinion on the exchange of accusations between both parties but instead addressed the matter that, for some, sparked the fight in the first place. This refers to the fact that the judge-president of TUI had stated during the inauguration of the Judicial Year that Macau’s Portuguese-style legal system was not adjusted to Macau’s current reality and needed to change accordingly.
The top judge noted that among the differences between Macau and Portugal that, in his opinion, make the system retrogressive, are “Portuguese ethics, value systems, customs, cultural heritage, and other aspects which diverge considerably from those in Macau,” Sam said, underlining the need for an evaluation and reflection.
On the topic, local lawyer José Alvares expressed the opinion that while it is natural that the legal system would become closer to that which exists in the mainland (and by consequence more distant from the system in Portugal), such changes should not come abruptly. “Taking the Basic Law as an arrangement devised for a stable transition of Macau between the Portuguese and the Chinese administration, it is only natural that the legal system herein will tend to get closer to that of the mainland and slowly diverge from its origin. Notwithstanding, Macau has thrived under the existing framework, and while everything can be improved, a balanced review should be preferred to any uprooting,” the lawyer said.
Veteran lawyer Sérgio de Almeida Correia sees the issue in a different perpective.
“I confess that this case, which was already blurry from the start, is now even more. At this point, we all realized already that this is yet another one of Dr. Neto Valente’s many personal conflicts,” he told the Times.
For Correia, such personal conflict between the president of AAM and the president of the TUI has now reached a new stage, moving to the institutional level and placing the leadership of AAM in opposition to the Council of the Judicial Magistrates (CMJ).
Correia recalled the words of Neto Valente two years ago, when he expressed intentions of presenting an alternative list to run to AAM elections.
“He said at that time that I would transform AAM into a trade union [style organization] with political purposes. He called me an extremist, but what we see now is him making use of the post to engage in a battle that does not serve the law or the lawyers,” he said.
Addressing the statements made by the president of TUI, Correia noted that he was also concerned about such content and even wrote about it promptly.
“Still, after all that happened with the Nam Van land plots in which Neto Valente even participated in a press conference [about it] and he made statements on the case of the lawmaker Sulu Sou, I find strange that he is suddenly concerned with the situation,” Correia added.
“I think he should clarify [to] the lawyers and the society about what his interest is in the case [of the Taipa land plot] mentioned by the president of TUI so we can understand exactly what is going on.”
Correia said that it would be also good to understand what opinions are held on this case by those who have supported Neto Valente over the years in the presidency of the AAM.
“He wants Dr. Sam Hou Fei to leave the TUI. I can agree that such a court needs to be reformed, but not for the same reasons as the president of AAM. The way that he has been asking for the replacement does not honor the lawyers because [the person] who is asking is also someone that is holding the chair of AAM [in a similar way].”
For the lawyer, what was expressed in the statement by the CMJ is very serious and Neto Valente felt insulted, “as I would feel too. But he needs to react on his own and not drag all lawyers [within the] professional class into this.”
“I am wondering if, after all that has been said and is being said, whether he still has conditions to consider a new candidacy next month. But this is a nightmare for the profession that needs and wants to be respected,” Correia concluded.