News
Legal/General News
No fraternising | No fraternising |
|
|
|
| Monday, 11 June 2007 07:58am | |
|
‘Judges must stay on the top, not mix with lawyers’ “Each is to his own function. Lawyers represent clients – whether by prosecuting or defending – and judges must be on the top, not in the middle. “So, a judge should not ‘turun padang‘ (go to the ground). He should be above that. And, lawyers should not be seen with a judge,” he said. “In the old days, we judges kept to ourselves. We were friends only with people who were respectable, with no involvement in legal matters or businesses,” he said. Syed Ahmad, 69, a High Court judge from 1990-96, was asked to comment on the extent to which judges and lawyers can fraternise, in view of recent developments in Altantuya Shaariibuu murder trial where a deputy public prosecutor was removed because he played badminton with the presiding judge. Syed Ahmad: Judges must be on pedestal Last week, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail replaced DPP Salehuddin Saidin with Tun Abdul Majid Hamzah, after he learned that Salehuddin had been playing badminton with trial judge Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin.Veteran lawyer and opposition MP Karpal Singh, who is holding a watching brief for Altantuya’s family and the Mongolian government, has filed an appeal to disqualify Hazman Ahmad from representing Chief Insp Azilah Hadri,one of the accused, because Hazman’s late wife was Mohd Zaki’s niece. Syed Ahmad said there was no specific code of conduct that judges and lawyers must adhere to except for certain rules under the Legal Profession Act 1976,“but they do not cover everything”. Traditionally, he said, judges accepted invitation to attend a function only from associations, and not individuals or a particular law firm. “Judges must be really above board and keep to themselves,”
he said. “They must be on a pedestal. To me, judges are the property of the
nation. They are the Asked why judges were expected to maintain such conduct, Syed Ahmad said, “because justice must not only be done but seen to be done”. He said a judge’s conduct must be such that everyone concerned was comfortable that a decision was made not because he was close to any one party. On the status of judges now compared with the past, he said, “There is a loosening of standards. I am very sad.” He said it was not a problem if one party in the case were to be related through marriage or in a distant way to the judge. However, he said if there was possibility of conflict of interest, “one must be honourable enough to take the necessary action”. Syed Ahmad read law in Britain in the 60s and joined the legal practice after returned to Malaysia. He was a magistrate in Kedah. After a couple of corporat stints, he returned to the judiciary and was appointed High Court judge in 1990. He resigned in 1996, after his allegations of corruption in the judiciary were dismissed by the authorities. Comments (1)
![]() Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|







©















Datuk Syed Ahmad Aidid
The old system of Judges being circumspect in socialising with every Tom, Dick and Harry, if we can agree to call it that, went out the window when we had a top Judge saying in the late 1980s that he belonged to a different school.
I am not suggesting that any particular Judge is socialising as if there is no tomorrow, but stating that I do agree with your sentiments in this area.
The theory is that Judges, by virtue of the nature of their work, must operate "beyond reproach," just like Caesar's wife.
Stephen Tan Ban Cheng