"Depending on when you start counting, Burma has enjoyed either forty-eight or fifty-four years of independence. De iure, the era of British colonisation came to an end on the 4th January, 1948. De facto, the British had lost control six years earlier when the Japanese army swept them and their Indian auxiliaries out of the country. Since independence, the principle question of Burmese law has been how much of the colonial legal system to jettison: there is general agreement that the legal system inherited in 1948 had to become more Burmese, but considerable debate about how far the legal decolonisation should go. This article deals with the issue in terms of personalities. I focus on the careers of the two most distinguished Burmese lawyers of the period and analyse their respective views on decolonisation. The influence of E Maung (1889-1972) over legal policy was felt most strongly during the 1950s. During the 1960s and 1970s Maung Maung (1925-1994) single handedly redesigned the legal system. In 1988 he became President of Burma, but was ousted, a month after his appointment, in SLORC's military coup. Since 1988 the Burmese state has been delegalised. Eight years after the coup, martial law remains in force and the colonels show no sign of respecting the result of the election they called in 1990. I conclude the article with speculations about the future. Since law has undergone so many changes over the last fifty years, there is no single status quo ante to which a democratic Burma could return. Theoretically, Burma could restore the substantive law and legal institutions that prevailed at any of the following dates: 1988, 1970, 1959, 1947 or 1884. Which of these options will be a realistic possibility if Burma ever does return to legality?"