1. Every admitted Legal Practitioner in practice has had, at the beginning of their careers as officer of the court, to parrot in their admission papers the phrase that they are fit and proper to be admitted as officers of the court.
2. Every aspiring Legal Practitioner will have, before being given the privilege to stand and argue in court, to parrot the same phrase and allege that they are fit and proper and worthy of the admission into the noble position of an officer of the court.
3. This short reflection paper deals with the requirements of that particular test for admission to and continuation of enrolment as an officer of the court – vis, what it entails to be a fit and proper (or worthy) person to enjoy the privilege associated with the practice of law. 
4. In her article titles “The Requirement of Being a Fit and Proper Person For the Legal Profession” Author and professor of Law, Magda Slabbert, Professor Department of Jurisprudence, University of South Africa had the following to say :-
   “. . . since the beginning of time, the law was considered a ‘noble profession’ and only certain people were allowed to practice (it) . . .”
5. A more elaborate introductory piece was crafted by Nonkululeko Sibanyoni where she wrote as follows :-
   “ . . . in law, ethics and morality are closely associated, one can even argue that since the law condemns immoral and unethical behavior, it would be unbefitting to place the law in the hands of someone with moral turpitude . . . ” 
6. She went further to state :-
   “ . . . over the years it has become apparent that merely holding an LLB degree or having a thorough knowledge of the law is not sufficient: one also has to possess qualities such as honesty, candor, trustworthiness and [a general] sense of fairness . . .”
7. As the law often does, the requirement of “fit and proper” is nowhere defined or described in any known legislation irrespective that it is such an integral part of the admission requirements to practice law. What that requirement entails is therefore left in the subjective-objective discretion of whomsoever is tasked with the assessment of a particular candidate or dealing with a particular application for striking off the roll. Even those of us who daily grapple with the application of this test are none-the-wiser in defining what it entails if asked.
8. In General Council of the Bar of South Africa –v- Jiba & Others HON JUDGE proffered a general description of this test by stating that a fit and proper person is someone possessing integrity, objectivity, dignity, capacity for hardwork, respect for the legal order and a [general] sense of equity and fairness.
9. The above literature provides a general guideline, without strictures, of what will be considered by a court in applying the “fit and proper (worthy)” test. The caveat however is that each case will be dealt with on its own merits. Generally speaking though the absence of any objection or evidence of past improper or dishonorable conduct will point towards an application for admission being accepted as fit and proper.
10. What an aspirant for admission ought therefore to ensure is that in the track of his academic career and life in general prior to admission, he or she leave no basis for objection or evidence of past improper or dishonorable conduct which may be used to as basis for objection to admission.
11. That journey to cleanliness does not start from a month prior to admission as a legal practitioner. It is a life-long journey. Among the common basis for admission is criminal convictions or investigations more particularly for offenses involving dishonesty, misconduct and disciplinary hearings at schools and workplaces, and more disturbingly as is on the rise, falsification of academic qualifications, whether for the purposes of admission to tertiary education or gaining employment and any other conduct that may render a particular candidate unworthy of the status and privileges of a truly noble profession which the law is.
12. While it is so that a fit and proper (worthy) person refers among other things, to someone who will shun unethical behavior or temptations to manipulate the system on behalf of client at the expense of justice, this requirement poses a fundamental dilemma to legal practitioners operating in an adversarial system of justice.
13. By its very nature an adversarial system of justice requires the practitioner to manipulate the system on behalf of client even at the expense of justice itself. However, this may be sugar-coated, manipulation of the system on behalf of client is the very backbone of defense in an adversarial system. The role of the practitioner is firstly to know the truth from client, know the applicable law and find loopholes for escape, then off you go. In fact in my earlier career my colleagues often colloquially used to call me Mr Loophole because I mastered the art of first looking for loopholes before concerning myself with the often unnecessary so-called truths and facts coming out of client and witness’ mouths.
14. That is simply what defense is about. By its fundamental structure the adversarial system of justice places lawyers in a situation where they focus on their clients interest and not really strive for justice or the promotion of the general good – lawyers are then expected to present the client’s case in the best light possible with an indifference to the moral merits of the case.
15. Reconciling the adversarial system with the above reality check therefore presents a dilemma for academicians – and for that reason the test has remained undefined or undefinable with the attendant risk of selective application of course. In practice often the same judge would accept a whatsapp message from a Counsel who is driving and gets stuck in traffic and running late to court but the same judge refuses an email from a different Counsel who is stuck in a train and running late to court - finding the latter to be unworthy and the former to be collegial.
16. Then one wonders.

MS MELISA VIMBAINASHE, (LLB Cand UNISA).
ADV ISIAH MURERIWA.
MURERIWA LAW CHAMBERS
13 March 2021 at PRETORIA, +27 71 151 9000, advmureriwa@yahoo.com,