Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

© The Straits Times, Singapore (Used by permission)
By Brendan Pereira in Kuala Lumpur

The gloves are off. The Bar Council and the judiciary looks set to resume a long-running battle after two years

THE honeymoon is over.

The two-year initiative to improve relations between lawyers and the judiciary is all but buried.

From now, expect both sides to dredge up the past and strike a familiar position: one of confrontation.

The Bar attempted to fire the first salvo yesterday. Only the lack of quorum at an extraordinary general meeting prevented several contentious motions from being passed.

Two stood out: A call to limit the Bar's relationship with the judiciary; and a concern that judges have become "trigger-happy" in citing lawyers for contempt.

Despite the setback, it is understood that similar hard-hitting motions will be tabled at the Bar Council's annual general meeting this year.

Former council secretary Manjeet Singh Dhillon lays it down straight. He says: "Relations will go downhill from here and may never return to a state of mutual respect."

He should know. The prominent criminal lawyer led the last revolt against the judiciary in the late 80s, and was a decision away from being sent to jail for contempt.

It was the time during which Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas was dismissed by a tribunal for criticising the government in a letter to the King.

The rift began when the Bar passed a motion of no-confidence against Tun Hamid Omar, who replaced the sacked judge.

Lawyers felt that the new Lord President should not have sat on the tribunal that presided over the sacking of Tun Salleh.

The Bar refused to recognise Tun Hamid as Lord President, and some senior lawyers chose not to appear before him.

Lawyers also felt that the Mahathir administration was having too large a say in the administration of justice.

From here on, relations worsened.

Judges were not invited for the annual games with lawyers. Bickering over court decisions went on incessantly, often through the media.

Relations hit rock bottom after what is famously known as the Ayer Molek case in 1995.

In a nutshell, it involved the transfer of shares from Ayer Molek Rubber Company to Insas and Metropolitan Nominees.

The case which went all the way to the Federal Court the highest appellate court, raised questions on ethics, justice and fair play.

As a result, the Bar Council passed a resolution voicing concern over what it saw as the deterioration in the standard of administration of justice in Malaysia.

Says a senior lawyer: "Over the years, our main concern has been the integrity of the justice system here. The judiciary should always be seen to be free and unfettered."

Some judges and politicians saw the resolutions, snide remarks in the press and frequent challenges in the court room differently.

They felt that the Bar Council was behaving like an opposition party.

Lawyers were pre-judging the man at the centre, and were loath to accept defeat.

Chief Justice of the Federal Court Tun Eusoff Chin remarked: "If you have a bad case, you have to lose. Appeal if you disagree with a decision but learn to accept the courts' judgments gracefully."

"The Bar Council is quite observant of any small mistake made by the Bench and they blow it up."

Also irksome was the council's apparent reticence when it came to dealing with errant lawyers, and checking slipping standards as well as its inability to take criticism.

At that stage, it appeared that both sides had dug their trenches and were content to be in a state of confrontation.

Enter Datuk Dr Cyrus Das as the president of the Bar Council in 1997. His priority: to normalise relations with the judiciary.

He preached a less confrontational style and his council preferred behind-the-scenes negotiations with the top judges to settle niggling issues.

He said optimistically then: "There is a willingness on the part of both parties to work towards a good relationship and not let past problems dominate."

The truce lasted two years. Matters came to head again during the trial of Anwar Ibrahim.

Justice Augustine Paul sentenced former Bar Council office bearer Zainur Zakaria to three months' jail for contempt of court for attempting to undermine the integrity of the trial.

He also disallowed Dr Das from holding a watching brief during the contempt hearing.

Says a senior lawyer: "Our so-called improved relations with the Bench was just cosmetic. Even the man who paved the way for better ties was snubbed."

Lawyers were upset at this decision. More than 200 of them marched to court to show solidarity with Mr Zainur. Others are wearing white ribbons as a mark of protest.

A senior lawyer speaks candidly when he says that the problems of today have their roots in the Tun Hamid affair.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed