|
Bar Council seeks review of court decision |
|
|
|
|
Sunday, 06 January 2008 09:48am |
|
 ©New
Sunday Times (Used by permission)
KUALA LUMPUR: The Bar Council will seek a review of the Federal Court decision
which "approved" the appointment of academician Dr Badariah Sahamid as a
judicial commissioner. (Please click here to download the 4 judges'
judgments)
Chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan said the council had been advised
by its lawyers that there were good grounds for review.
"We've considered all the judgments carefully and have decided to file an
application for review soon." she told the New Sunday Times.
She explained that the Federal Court's decision was reached by "too close" a
majority.
"Three judges were of the view that her (Badariah's) appointment was valid while
two others disagreed."
Badariah, a former law lecturer, was appointed as a judicial commissioner on
March 1.
Before her appointment to the commercial division of the High Court in Kuala
Lumpur, she was an associate professor at Universiti Malaya's law faculty.
Her new post came under scrutiny when the Bar filed an action in July against
her appointment and questioned its legality.
According to the lawyers, although Badariah was called to the Bar in 1988 she
had never practised law, a prerequisite they contend is necessary for judicial
posts.
On Dec 27, Federal Court judges Datuk Nik Hashim Abdul Rahman, Datuk Hashim
Yusoff and Datuk Azmel Ma'amor held that Badariah's appointment was
constitutional.
Badariah, they said, had been "in practice" because she had attained knowledge
and experience as a law lecturer.
However, Chief Justice Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad and judge Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad
Makinuddin, who dissented, said Badariah was unqualified because she had not
been in practice for at least 10 years as a lawyer or in the judicial and legal
service.
Ambiga said the council would also consider applying to expunge certain remarks
made by one of the judges while delivering the majority decision.
"In making his remarks, he named some other judges who had been similarly
appointed, which we feel was unnecessary."
 |
News/Articles/Notices 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Direct Access Mastercard Exclusive Rebates
No one seems to post any comment, may be not by litigation lawyers who have to attend court. What about the conveyancers? Any comment?
I wonder how the majority decision could have interpreted the way they have interperted the Constitution. I am still baffled and confused.
Perhaps, it is time now to amend the Constitution to include law lecturers as well or any other law related professions who are law graduates beside the ones as clearly stated in the Constitution e.g legal advisers, human resource etc.
Zulkepli Omar