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

©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
By Anis Ibrahim

KUALA LUMPUR: Is the legal profession’s disciplinary board on the way to becoming the judge, juror and executioner?

Yes, say lawyers disagreeing with, among other things, the removal of the investigating tribunal in the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill.

No, says the Bar Council that has backed the move in the belief that it is for the good of the legal profession.

Lawyer G.K. Ganesan said the existing Act involved investigations into complaints by the Investigating Tribunal while decisions on the lawyer were made by the board.

"The amendments have done away with the tribunal and, instead, allowed the board to both investigate and adjudicate on the matter.

"In a criminal case, even the police officer who prosecutes you is different from the one who arrested you or took your cautioned statement. It is unconstitutional when such safeguards have been thrown away," he said.

The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill was passed by Dewan Negara on July 27. While the amendments have in general been welcomed, 130 lawyers have asked the Bar Council for an extraordinary general meeting to discuss the sections they disagree with.

The lawyers, who on Monday submitted a requisition for an EGM, are protesting against provisions relating to disciplinary proceedings.

Ganesan noted that disciplinary hearings will be made secret under the Bill, as no board member can be compelled to disclose information on its proceedings.

"Can you imagine a disciplinary body functioning under the rules of secrecy, finding you guilty? It is extremely unfair," he told the New Straits Times yesterday.

He said it was also unjust that those who failed to give information to the board could be guilty of a criminal offence.

Under the Bill, the board can ask any person to provide information to allow it to conduct investigations, failing which, that person can be liable to a maximum fine of RM2,000, a maximum prison term of three months, or both.

'Any person' includes relatives and colleagues, who can all be sent to prison. How can such a provision be justified?" Ganesan asked.

But he stressed that he was not against the Bar Council.

"I am not council-bashing, I am in great admiration of the Bar Council for the good things it has done. I am only against the consequences of the offending amendments.

"What we are asking for is that the offending provisions be stayed, while the amendments to the quorum and the young lawyers’ matter be allowed to continue."

Another contention, Ganesan said, is the removal of the right to judicial review and the limited right to appeal.

"The benefit of judicial review is that the High Court can review the decision-making process immediately without the lawyer having to wait after the hearing. Even an accused person has the right to ask a judge to rescue himself.

"Whereas if a lawyer is up against board members he knows are against him, he can’t ask for different members."

Bar Council chairman Yeo Yang Poh said the amendments on disciplinary proceedings were requested by the board as it felt that the judicial review procedure resulted in delay.

"A judicial review application halts the proceedings midway, is often disruptive and lengthens the entire process. On the other hand, appeals up to the Federal Court will still be in place after the amendments become law.

"The board’s decisions can still be challenged after the proceedings. It is not true that lawyers have lost their right to appeal."

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed