Cj Ex Bar Chiefs Hint That Judiciary Is Under Siege Again

---

The hallowed halls of our courts of justice are governed by precedents (some call them ancient traditions) and statutes to ensure civility and decorum.
Written and unwritten rules, including dress codes, must be followed. All court officers are reasonably expected to adapt and practice the procedures strictly.
Their respective code of conduct governs those sitting as adjudicators and counsel representing the various parties. The exchange of views in presenting evidence sometimes breaches the threshold, and judges are quick to admonish those who choose to cross the line.
It is said that interpretations of the law must be left to the legal eagles, but propriety and courteousness are expected to extend once the robes are off and out of court. But not all the time, though.
Except for rare occasions, opinions expressed in their official capacities are usually never coarse or abrasive. They are primarily couched in diplomacy, often leading the man in the street to interpret the messages.
Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan MatHence, the remarks of Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat at the opening of Legal Year on Jan 8 and the subsequent statement by nine former presidents of the Malaysian Bar make compelling reading, re-examination, and dissection.
‘Something rotten in house of Denmark’
Make no mistake. Tengku Maimun stands as the beacon of courage and integrity when many other facets of public administration have hit rock bottom with no signs of re-emergence.
Are these insinuations that all is not that hunky dory as perceived? Are they broad hints that we are slipping back to the bad old days?
Who will forget the “justice in the bin” remarks made in 1988 after the then-lord president Salleh Abas and five senior judges were sacked? In one swoop, we lost some of the best legal brains in the country.
What followed in 1995 was even more sinister. The selection of judges and the decisions made in the Ayer Molek Rubber Company vs Insas Bhd case prompted the late judge NH Chan to quote Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, saying: “Something is rotten in this House of Denmark,” referring to where the courts were then stayed.
Although expunged, these words still reverberate in legal circles when discussing the bad old days.
Later, in yet another expose of serious transgressions committed by the Malaysian judiciary, judge KC Vohrah wrote an in-house publication of the Malaysian judiciary to mark the Court of Appeal’s 20th anniversary.
He said former chief justice Eusoff Chin tried to influence a Court of Appeal judge hearing the appeal of the controversial Ayer Molek case.
Then came the infamous Adorna Properties case, in which the Federal Court decided against the statutory provisions of the National Land Code and claims of forgery.
In reversing the decision, the five-member panel led by then chief justice Zaki Azmi unanimously departed from the court’s previous judgment made by a three-member panel headed by Eusoff.
The chief justice’s family holidaying with VK Lingam’s family in New Zealand made headlines, too.
The “Man with the Camera”, Loh Gwo Burne (who later became Kelana Jaya MP), videotaped Lingam speaking to a judge on judicial appointments.
Warning signs
Tengku Maimun referred to the 1988 judicial crisis, saying it had taken decades to instil public trust and confidence in the judiciary and that judicial independence must be upheld and enhanced.
Were the subsequent succinct remarks by former Malaysian Bar presidents that it was disappointing that the government is being perceived to be falling short in upholding judicial independence compared to the previous three administrations?
They noted that Tengku Maimun’s recent speech attests to external interference in the judicial appointment process.
“The pressures put on the judiciary in the last several years by external forces were clear to many of us, who know the signs only too well.
“It is widely perceived that the previous three governments valued and respected judicial independence more than the current government, which is extremely disappointing, to say the least,” they said.
These remarks cannot be summarily dismissed, coming from people who have led their flock over the past two decades and who have collectively accomplished more than two centuries of work.
Are there creaks, or have attempts been made to usurp the powers of the courts or those of the Judicial Appointments Commission?
Referring to remarks made by then-opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim 15 years ago, which touched on judicial appointments and independence, Tengku Maimun noted the current prime minister’s observation related to the notion that perception plays a big part in judicial independence.
“When things like this happen, it is similar to, if not worse than, the lessons in the children’s parable of the boy who cried wolf. Crying wolf wantonly could backfire when no one believes you when the wolf arrives to eat the sheep. 
“Applying it to us, making the irredeemable mistake of rendering one decision coloured with bias, or appointing one candidate that is only chosen as a favour, throws into question the integrity of the entire judiciary and none of the decisions delivered after that will engender the public confidence and trust, even if that decision is correct on the facts and the law,” she said.
Last week, when delivering a keynote address at the Negeri Sembilan Bar Law Conference in commemoration of NS Bar’s 60th Anniversary, Tengku Maimun advised sitting judges to remain steadfast and dispense justice reasonably even if faced with contrary requests from the executive.
“An independent judge decides cases on the merits, without regard to personalities involved, with no fear of any kind of threat or sanction,” she noted.
These remarks, made in tandem with previous ones, suggest that attempts had been made. After all, there is no smoke without fire. Have such requests been made? The Chief Justice knows better.
Anwar must reflect on his speech at the Law Asia conference in Brisbane, Australia, on March 22, 2005, in which he remarked, “There were only two kinds of lawyers: those who know the law and those who know the judge.”
He discussed his then-incarceration and concluded: “In a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, however, where the judges are subservient to the political masters, judicial high-handedness is given free rein, and transparency is conspicuous by its absence.”
Is history repeating itself?  - Mkini
R NADESWARAN says right-thinking Malaysians should be alarmed over the recent remarks and dread even imagining that the independence of the judiciary is being threatened. Comments: [email protected]
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---