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

©The Star (Used by permission)
Comment by Chelsea L.Y. Ng

THIS year has not been an auspicious year for the security, legal and judicial institutions.

The legal annals is filled with embarrassing events – the first two thirds of the 2007 calendar was occupied by a series of acquittals of accused persons in several high-profile court cases or unsolved crimes caused by shoddy investigations, poor prosecution and judgments. 

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail attributed the failure to secure a conviction in those cases to the problems of classification of high-profile cases.

He has reportedly said that his chambers’ definition of high-profile was very different from that of the press.

The point is: it does not matter whether the press’ definition was right or wrong.

What matters is that when a case is under press scrutiny, it will be under the public’s watchful eyes.

If the court says it is throwing out a case because the prosecution had bungled, no one is going to say that the prosecution has failed in a small case, which happened to be in the limelight.

The fact remains that a case has been thrown out and the reason given by the court is that the prosecution had messed up a case or the police did not investigate properly and they must pull up their socks.

If the situation does not improve, and the blunders were to be repeated several times in a row, then the public would no doubt quickly form the opinion that the prosecution has not bucked up – because its DPPs are of no calibre, the DPP is corrupt or there is political influence or an order for the DPP to deliberately prosecute poorly.

The conclusion may be unfair, prejudiced and even untrue but given the circumstances, it is very hard to stop the public from having such perceptions.

Former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid made an observation on this issue during a talk he gave last week.

He said that the A-G should not worry if the prosecution loses a case. DPPs, he said, could learn from their mistakes; take action to improve and build their cases.

The former judge, who is known for his witty comments, also made an important observation.

He said that accepting a court’s decision was important as judges would feel comfortable and make their judgments independently and responsibly.

However, by the time these comments were made, there was already the existence of a scandalous video clip showcasing lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam as allegedly brokering a judicial appointment for a very senior judge.

The emergence of this video clip, whose authenticity the authority wants determined first, has dealt a great blow to the justice system.

It confirms the suspicions of many that there is a crisis within the judiciary that has not been resolved since the sacking of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988.

For others, their perception of the judiciary – whether or not the video clip is authentic – is on the down side.

Memories of allegations of lawyers writing judgments for judges and judgments being “put up for sale” in the last decade are back to haunt us,

This new turn of events is killing whatever confidence is left within the public for the system.

We have reached a state where we can be cynical about the court’s ability to dispense justice objectively.

Many a time lawyers, members of the public and people who have interest in certain ongoing cases would ask those familiar with the system for a prediction of the trial results.

Very often the results are predictable and it is becoming more predictable by the day. This is, of course, with the exception of a few judges but the number is too small to be mentioned.

There is therefore an urgent need to save our judiciary and restore it to the glorious and respectable position it once enjoyed.

And to reach this goal, everyone must put in some effort.

The Government cannot do it alone because it needs good feedback and this can only be gotten from people in the field concerned.

For instance, those within the judiciary can give input on the proper and practical procedures for the appointment or promotion of judges while the Bar can help by identifying the causes of the loss of confidence.

It may take us some time before we get our judiciary back on track but the effort is well worth it for the generations to come.

Once the judiciary is back on course, the domino effect should ensue.

Our learned judges would then make sure that cases are prosecuted within the four corners of professionalism and well-thought-of legal paths.

The prosecutors, while receiving invaluable input from these scholarly judges, would in turn be able to better guide police officers in what to go after in their investigations.

Once this is achieved, it will bring new meaning to the life of our society.

As philosopher and author John Homer Miller put it: “Your living is determined not so much by what life brings to you as by the attitude you bring to life; not so much by what happens to you as by the way your mind looks at what happens.”

Our fate lies in our hands, and so does our judiciary’s fate.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed