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

Number of Members present: 1,596

Motion 1:

Whereas:

1. It has been universally recognised that an independent and courageous legal profession is indispensable to the Rule of Law in a democratic society.

2. According to the Harare Principles of 1991 that received renewed commitment at the 1997 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Edinburgh to inter alia, protect and promote “democratic processes and institutions... the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary” and which by the Latimer House guidelines for the Commonwealth of June 1998 has been declared to include “an independent organised legal profession (as) an essential component in the protection of the rule of law.”

3. The Legal Profession Act 1976 has established in Malaysia an independent and courageous legal profession and Section 42(1)(a) of the Act specifically decrees the Malaysian Bar to “uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.”

4. This decree has been duly embodied and guaranteed in rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules, 1978 in terms that an Advocate and Solicitor shall “fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, the interest of justice and dignity of the profession without regard to any unpleasant consequences either to himself or to any other person.” It calls upon an Advocate and Solicitor to discharge his/her primary role to advocate his/her client’s cause and not himself/herself to be a judge of it.

5. The power to punish for contempt of court is vested by law in all the courts of the country but by convention and case-law is to be sparingly exercised and only in the most extreme of cases so that it does not retard especially in relation to Advocates and Solicitors, the proper and fearless discharge of their duties on behalf of their clients.

6. The Commonwealth Statement on Freedom of Expression has duly recommended that “the law of contempt of court should be set out in statutory form in order to preclude arbitrariness and excessive use of judicial discretion”.

7. The Bar Council established under the Act and vested with the powers of the management of the affairs of the Malaysian Bar under Section 47(1) and entrusted with various duties and functions including those outlined in Section 42 has a vital interest in the betterment of the profession and concerning the administration of justice, and a real concern about the conduct of the members of the Bar in the performance of their duties.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED

1. That the Malaysian Bar calls upon the Government, the Judiciary, the Attorney-General, the Police and all other law enforcing authorities to recognise and give effect to the need for an independent and courageous legal profession in Malaysia to uphold the rule of law and the values of a democratic society and not in any way to impede or hinder the same or in any way to undermine the dignity of the profession and the duties and responsibilities of its members.

2. That the Bar Council and members of the Malaysian Bar be respected and given their rightful identity and be treated with fairness in the role they play as advocates and solicitors so that justice would not only be done but also be seen to be done.

3. That the Malaysian Bar declares that its members are entitled to be represented by the Bar Council and be given due recognition as its statutorily recognised representative whether by watching brief or other means to protect its interest and that of its members at all times and in order that Advocates and Solicitors may play their due role in upholding justice and to act fearlessly for their clients, and in cases especially where Advocates and Solicitors face peril or jeopardy in the course of discharge of their responsibilities.

4. That the Malaysian Bar reiterates that the power to punish for contempt of court is by tradition to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and that in relation to Advocates and Solicitors in a manner not to retard the proper and fearless discharge of their duty on behalf of their clients. The Malaysian Bar expresses grave concern and disquiet on the recent judicial trend to use the powers of contempt against Advocates and Solicitors.

5. That the Malaysian Bar noting that the law of contempt is now reduced in statutory form in countries like the United Kingdom and India calls for the clear specification in statutory form of the scope and extent of the law of contempt in accordance with the recommendation of the Commonwealth Statement on Freedom of Expression “to preclude arbitrariness and excessive use of judicial discretion” in that judicial discretion would be exercised on established principles of law that are universally accepted.

Proposer: Bar Council

Motion 2:

Whereas

A. Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 provides, inter alia, that the purpose of the Malaysian Bar is to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.

B. Rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 states that “an advocate and solicitor shall while acting with all due courtesy to the tribunal before which he is appearing, fearlessly uphold the interest of his client, the interest of justice and dignity of the profession without regard to any unpleasant consequences either to himself or to any other person.

C. On 30th November 1998, an advocate and solicitor (namely Encik Zainur Zakaria) was sentenced to three (3) month’s imprisonment for being in contempt of court for the filing of an application to seek the removal of leading prosecutors in the case concerned, which application he refused to withdraw nor to apologise therefor. The application was made upon the instructions of his client and was based on the very serious allegations against the said prosecutors made by another advocate and solicitor (namely, Mr Manjeet Singh Dhillon) in a letter dated 12th October 1998 which is exhibited in Mr Manjeet Singh’s statutory declaration on 9th November 1998. Amongst the accusations made by Mr Manjeet Singh is that the said prosecutors have allegedly sought, using the threat of the mandatory death penalty for a charge under the Internal Security Act, to obtain evidence from one Dato’ Nallakaruppan to implicate Encik Zainur’s client. The serious allegations of (inter alia) “blackmail and extortion of the highest culpability”(in Mr Manjeet Singh’s words) have not been challenged through any affidavit in reply nor have they been withdrawn or qualified in any way by Mr Manjeet Singh’s statement which was read in court on 2nd December 1998.

D. The Attorney-General has made denials from the Bar Table in Court with regard to these serious issues but has not led sworn evidence in Court. The said prosecutors have not been required to file any affidavit in reply while Encik Zainur was not allowed to present evidence through witnesses.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE MALAYSIAN BAR AS FOLLOWS:-

1. The Malaysian Bar expresses grave concern over the serious allegations raised by Mr Manjeet Singh Dhillon against the aforesaid prosecutors (which allegations have been left unchallenged); and calls upon the Government to immediately set up an independent commission of inquiry to investigate this matter fully and make its findings public.

2. The Malaysian Bar expresses grave concern over the manner in which contempt powers have been (and may be) invoked by Judges against advocates and solicitors who seek to discharge their duties in accordance with the Legal Profession Act 1976 and without fear or favour.

3. The Malaysian Bar is of the view that custodial sentence should not be imposed for contempt of court except perhaps for the most serious cases imaginable. The Malaysian Bar is of the further view that there must be parity in sentencing.

4. The Malaysian Bar directs the Bar Council to take immediate steps to cause a detailed study to be carried out into the law relating to contempt, and the instances of contempt and threatened contempt invoked against advocates and solicitors discharging their duties in and out of court; and thereafter to make expeditious proposals publicly to the Government for the clarification codification revocation and/or amendment (as may be appropriate) of the relevant laws and the formulation of a fair and clear policy in relation to the law of contempt, including sentencing.

5. The Malaysian Bar further directs the Bar Council to monitor and document all cases of contempt and threatened contempt against advocates and solicitors discharging their duties in and out of court and to provide all necessary assistance to such advocate and solicitor. The Bar Council should set up an appropriate mechanism to implement the above and provide a report to the Malaysian Bar at the next Annual General Meeting in March 2000.

Proposer: Mr P. Uthayakumar
Seconder: Mr Ravi Nekoo

Resolution:

The House agreed that since there was considerable overlap in the draft Contempt of Court Act and Motions 1 and 2, the three items could be dealt with simultaneously. The Motions were adopted in principle subject to Members submitting their comments to the Bar Council within three weeks.

Follow-up Action:

The Office Bearers and the Executive Director on behalf of the Bar Council, paid a courtesy call to the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of Malaya and the Chief Registrar on 16th January 2001. Amongst the matters raised was the possibility of expediting the enforcement of the proposed Contempt of Court Act to define contempt so that Judges do not exercise their discretion liberally.

Motion 3:

Whereas Part IIA of the Legal Profession Act 1976 was first enacted by Parliament in January 1978.

Whereas Part IIA was enacted for the specific purpose of dealing with what was then perceived as an impending boycott by the Bar Council of the trials under the Emergency (Essential Security Cases) Regulations 1975 (ESCAR) following the October 1977 Resolution of the Malaysian Bar.

Whereas the boycott of ESCAR trials was never fully implemented by the Bar in the larger interest of accused persons.

Whereas Part IIA was never brought into force and has been kept in abeyance for 21 years now.

Whereas in August/September 1997 correspondence and discussions had taken place between the Bar Council and the Attorney-General in the context of whether Part IIA could be used for the purposes of admission of foreign lawyers.

Whereas the Bar Council then took a strong stand that Part IIA was unsuitable to deal with the question of foreign lawyers and ought in any event not be brought into force.

Whereas the current economic climate has had and continues to have an adverse impact on lawyers.

Whereas there are enough lawyers in numbers who are able and willing to handle any case of any kind.

Whereas there is no justification for the retention of any power by the Attorney-General as provided by Part IIA to certify a lawyer who is otherwise not a qualified person under the Act to be admitted to the Bar for purpose of practice for fixed renewable durations.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE MALAYSIAN BAR THAT:-

1. The Malaysian Bar strongly protests the decision of the Attorney-General to bring into force Part IIA of the Act twenty one years after its first enactment without any justification for the same.

2. The Malaysian Bar calls for the total repeal of Part IIA as there is no basis or justification for the existence of the provision.

Proposer: Bar Council

Resolution:

The Motion was unanimously passed by the House.

Follow-up Action:

At the invitation of the Attorney-General, the Office Bearers met with him in his Chambers on 1st April 1999 to discuss the matter. The AG explained that the said Part was brought into force as a step towards meeting the obligations of the Government to liberalise the legal services sector as soon as possible. The Bar Council informed the AG that the members had, by a resolution of the Malaysian Bar on 20th March 1999, asked for a total repeal of Part IIA which was originally enacted under vastly different circumstances, as there is no basis or justification for the existence of the provision. Also that the Council did not agree with the AG’s rationale that liberalisation of the legal services sector in Malaysia via Part IIA could be tied up with liberalisation of legal services under GATS. Other jurisdictions have separate legislation to address the peculiar needs of foreign lawyers. Our local lawyers were subject to constraints under the Legal Profession Act but foreign lawyers would be allowed to do as they please. The AG assured the Bar Council that he would work out a set of strict conditions for foreign lawyers in consultation with the Bar Council. The guidelines on admission of foreign lawyers drawn up by the AG’s Chambers was gazetted on 19th August 1999 without consultation with the Bar Council. However, no Certificate, to the Bar Council’s knowledge has been issued to a foreign lawyer.

Motion 4:

A. The Malaysian Bar is a body corporate established under Section 41 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 (“the Act”) and is empowered to do all things specified in the Act and such other acts as bodies corporate may by law perform.

B. The purpose and object of the Malaysian Bar includes the duty to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.

C. The Bar Council is established under Sections 47 and 56 of the Act for the proper management of the affairs and for the proper performance of the functions and duties of the Malaysian Bar, that is, to act as the implementing agency of the Malaysian Bar.

D. The Malaysian Bar views with disquiet and grave concern recent events affecting the administration of justice in Malaysia and notes that resolutions were presented at General Meetings of the Malaysian Bar in March 1998, October 1998 and January 1999 relating to the style and manner in which the office bearers of the Bar Council 1998/99 were responding on behalf of the Malaysian Bar to such events and to the direction of its leadership.

E. The Malaysian Bar is concerned that if the office bearers of the incoming Bar Council continue to exercise leadership in the same manner and direction there would be a real danger that the Bar Council would be deviating from its traditional and statutory roles with the result that it may no longer be regarded by members of the Malaysian Bar or others as a body capable of publicly commenting on constitutional and legal matters and issues affecting the rule of law, administration of justice and human rights.

F. In order to prevent the occurrence of such a state of affairs, it is resolved that the leadership of the Malaysian Bar be vested in the hands of principled and courageous lawyers who will lead the Malaysian Bar in the proper way in the difficult years ahead.

G. The Malaysian Bar, while appreciating that the election of the President and Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar is to be conducted by members of the Bar Council pursuant to Section 54(1) of the Act and therefore appreciating that any resolution of the Malaysian Bar will not be binding upon members of the Bar Council, nonetheless express its collective wishes herein.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE MALAYSIAN BAR THAT:-

1. The President and Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar 1999/2000 should be Raja Aziz Addruse and Sulaiman Abdullah; and

2. All members of the Bar Council are invited, when electing the President and Vice-President, to take into account the wishes of the members of the Malaysian Bar in the choice of their leaders as expressed in this Resolution.

Proposer: En. Zainur Zakaria
Seconder: Mr R. Kesavan

Resolution:

The Motion was carried with 675 votes in favour, 159 against and 35 abstentions.

Motion 5:

Whereas the judiciary is an institution of the highest value for both political and economic stability in every country. It is an indispensable condition for the existence of the rule of law that the judiciary is independent and impartial and perceived to be so. Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaim that everyone should be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Whereas paragraph 27 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action 1993 declares, inter alia, that every State should provide an effective framework or remedies to redress human rights grievances or violations. The administration of justice, including law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies and especially an independent judiciary and legal profession in full conformity with applicable standards contained in international human rights instruments are essential to the full and non-discriminatory realisation of human rights and indispensable to the process of democracy and sustainable development.

Whereas an independent judiciary and legal profession is neither the right nor a privilege of judges and lawyers, but the right of all consumers of justice.

Whereas the Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region provides, inter alia, that judges should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary by avoiding impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all their actions.

Whereas both the U.N. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Beijing Statement of Principles provide that judges are chosen on the basis of proven competence, integrity and independence and further, promotion of judges are based on objective assessment of factors such as competence, integrity, independence and experience.

Whereas the U.N. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors provide, inter alia, that prosecutors carry out their functions impartially and avoid all political and other kinds of discriminations. And when prosecutors are vested with discretionary functions the law or published rules or regulations shall provide guidelines to enhance fairness and consistency of approach on taking decisions or waiver of prosecutions.

Whereas the U.N. Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide, inter alia, that lawyers in protecting the rights of their clients in promoting the cause of justice shall seek to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms recognised by national and international law. It further provides that governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference (c) shall not suffer or be threatened with prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards and ethics.

Whereas Malaysia as a member State of the United Nations has sought and held high offices in the General Assembly, Commission on Human Rights and is currently a member of the Security Council. The Chief Justice of Malaysia is a signatory to the Beijing Statement of Principles together with thirty-one other Chief Justices in the LAWASIA region. Hence the Malaysian Government and the Judiciary as an organ of the State are expected to honour, apply, and conform with the aforesaid international and regional standards to enhance judicial independence in the administration of justice.

Whereas the judiciary as an institution and judges individually are conferred with certain constitutional guarantees to insulate them from political and other influence and pressure in order to secure their independence and impartiality. Similarly the power of contempt, which is founded entirely on public policy, is vested in courts and to be exercised only to prevent interference with the administration of justice and should be limited to what is reasonably necessary for that purpose. Nevertheless judges too are accountable for their decisions and conduct save that public criticism of their decisions and conduct must be expressed in good faith and in fair and temperate language.

Recalling the elevation speech of the late Justice Fred Arulanandom delivered in 1974, expressing the important role of the Bar and the office of the Public Prosecutor in the administration of justice when he said, inter alia:

“The administration of Justice is dependent on a triangular structure with the Judiciary at the apex of the triangle and the Legal Department and the Bar forming the two corners of the base. Without an efficient, confident and incorruptible Public Prosecutor’s Department and a fearless, honest and scrupulous Bar, no Judiciary can be strong and as a result the rule of law would become a mockery and society will be deprived of its just deserts, whether it be civil or criminal. It is the duty of all of us to ensure that the law is not prostituted, justice is not perverted, citizenry is not exploited.”

Recalling further the events of 1988 when the balance of power of the three arms of the government provided in the Federal Constitution was tampered with by an amendment to Article 121 removing the judicial power from the two High Courts of Malaya and Borneo followed by the assault on the independence of the judiciary and subjecting the six senior most judges of the Supreme Court to tribunal proceedings resulting in three, including the Lord President, being removed.

Further recalling the valiant and courageous actions of the Malaysian Bar taken in defence of the independence of the judiciary including the resolution taken at the Extraordinary General Meeting on July 9, 1988 expressing a vote of no confidence in the then Chief Justice and calling for his removal for his role in the events and those tribunal proceedings of the six judges.

Noting that since those events of 1988 the independence and impartiality of the judiciary has been a source of concern.

Noting further that since 1994 there has been growing concern to the Bar and the general public over allegations of improprieties and irregularities in the judicial processes and decisions of the courts in some cases.

Noting of late allegations of some judges being transferred for improper reasons and judges in a particular division of the system sidestepped and certain specific cases assigned to judges of other divisions including the selective empanelling of judges for appeals in the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court for certain specific appeals.

Noting further allegations that the criteria for promotion of judges is not based on objective assessment of factors.

Noting further the growing concern over the judicial process being used to stifle freedom of expression, investigative journalism extracting accountability of public institutions and public listed corporations, demonstrated by the increasing number of defamation suits filed in court with general damages permitted to be quantified in millions of ringgit in pleadings which practice is unprecedented in the legal history of Malaysia. Quantifications of such magnitude and court awards anywhere near such figures would have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The European Court on Human Rights in the Tolstoy case (1995) HRLJ 295 held that an award of just £1.6 million by a U.K. court in a libel suit violated the freedom of expression provision in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Noting further the high incidence of lawyers being cited and committed for contempt of court and threatened with such citations and committals.

Noting further the allegations of unfair selective prosecutions instituted by the office of the Attorney-General.

Noting further how these events have intimidated the independence of lawyers to the extent that some lawyers have begun advising their clients that they would not file applications on behalf of them to recuse judges on grounds of bias or likelihood of bias however sound the grounds may be for fear of charges of contempt.

Noting further that these developments have created and is continuing to create a crisis of confidence, both domestically and internationally, in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and generally in the administration of justice in the country.

Recalling the important role the Malaysian Bar has throughout played in the promotion, protection and defence of the independence of the institution of the judiciary and the individual independence of judges and lawyers for the preservation of the rule of law in the country.

NOW, the Malaysian Bar gathered at this 53rd Statutory Annual Meeting expresses grave concern at the alleged deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and generally the administration of justice in the country.

The Malaysian Bar therefore directs the incoming Bar Council, as a matter of urgency and priority and without fear or favour and without regard to the interests of its individual members, to consider and if thought fit, to make recommendations calling for an appropriate formal inquiry by an independent Royal Commission to investigate the allegations of judicial improprieties, irregularities, indiscretions, misdemeanours, interferences, judicial or other harassments and intimidations of lawyers by the use of contempt powers or otherwise, the criteria applied for judicial appointments transfers and promotions, and allegations of unfair selective prosecutions instituted by the Attorney-General.

Proposers: Y.M. Raja Aziz Addruse
Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy

Resolution:

The House adopted the amended Motion by a majority vote.

Follow-up Action:

1) The scheduled EGM on 20th November 1999 to pursue the appointment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into instances of controversy which had undermined the confidence in the Malaysian Judiciary was denied when the High Court allowed the application of the plaintiff, Mr Raja Segaran s/o S. Krishnan, a member of the Bar, for an interlocutory injunction on 19th November 1999 with costs. The Malaysian Bar’s application to strike out the Writ was dismissed with costs on 15th November 1999. The Bar’s appeals to the Court of Appeal against both decisions of the High Court were dismissed with costs on 11th July and 12th July 2000 respectively.

2) The Malaysian Bar was again prevented from holding an EGM scheduled on 23rd June 2000 to discuss the motion that the Chief Justice, Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin, be suspended pending an investigation by a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the propriety of the Chief Justice’s alleged holiday in New Zealand with lawyer, Datuk V K Lingam. The incident was highlighted in the press as a result of comments by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr Rais Yatim, that such conduct on the part of the Chief Justice was not proper. The Writ was again filed by Mr Raja Segaran who sought a declaration that the EGM was wrongful, contrary to the Legal Profession Act and liable to expose members of the Bar to contempt and sedition proceedings. The High Court granted the injunction with costs; holding that there was no basis to call for an EGM on allegations attributed to someone who had not been asked to verify its truth. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Bar Council’s appeal on the ground that the conduct of judges can only be discussed by Parliament as provided by Article 125 or under Article 127 of the Constitution. The Bar Council’s application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was also dismissed as it was said to be without merit.

3) On 10th March 2001, the Judge asked the parties to be in court and suggested that the parties should consider a settlement. At an Annual General Meeting held on 17th March 2001, the Malaysian Bar decided not to accept any compromise or settlement.

On 4th May 2001, the Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s application for leave to discontinue the suit and ordered that each party bear its own costs. The Bar Council instructed its Solicitors to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Motion 6:

Whereas:-

1. It is the object of the Malaysian Bar, among other things, to uphold the cause of justice uninfluenced by fear or favour and to protect and assist the public in all matters touching ancillary or incidental to the law.

2. The Inspector-General of Police “IGP” is in command of the Royal Malaysian Police Force (“the Police Force”) and is responsible for the control and direction of the Police Force.

3. The former IGP, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor, has sent shock waves throughout the nation and internationally by his belated admission of having assaulted the former Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, while he was detained in police custody.

4. Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor whilst holding the rank of IGP has set a shameless and dangerous example of police brutality and has created fear and trauma in the public mind of the Police Force when its bounden duty is to accord protection to the public.

This Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar hereby resolves that the Honourable Attorney-General, as the Public Prosecutor, take the necessary steps to take appropriate action against Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor and calls on the Government, the Minister of Homer Affairs and the present IGP to take all necessary and effective measures to stop the recurrence of police brutality and allay all public fear of the Police Force.

Proposer: Mr N. Shanmugam
Seconder: Mr S. Asamaley

Resolution:

The Motion was carried by a majority show of hands.

Motion 7:

1. Whereas twenty-seven (27) persons have been shot dead by the police during police investigations into five (5) criminal cases since 28th January 1987;

2. Whereas Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that no persons shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law;

3. Whereas there have been frequent reports of abuse of police powers and of assault and violence inflicted by the police on suspects and detainees whilst in police custody; and

4. Whereas the issues of fatal shootings of suspects by the police and custodial violence are of vital concern to the public and are eroding public confidence in the police to uphold law and order in this country.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE MALAYSIAN BAR THAT:-

1. The Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya is hereby urged to exercise his powers/discretion to direct Magistrates to hold inquiries of death in open court under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code into all cases of death of persons caused during, arising from or occasioned by police investigations or operations.

2. The Public Prosecutor is hereby urged to exercise his powers/discretion under Section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct Magistrates to hold inquiries of death in open court under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code into all cases of death of persons caused during, arising from or occasioned by police investigations or operations and thereafter to prosecute any police officer/s in respect of any act connected with the death of the deceased or such hurt as caused such death.

3. The Minister of Home Affairs is hereby urged to look into the problems of abuse of police powers and custodial violence immediately and to issue guidelines and introduce measures to prevent any recurrence of such abuses and violence and to ensure that all such complaints against the police officer/s are investigated impartially and speedily, and

4. The Public Prosecutor is hereby urged to exercise his powers/duty to prosecute any police officer/s in respect of any act connected with abuse of police powers and/or custodial violence without fear or favour.

Proposer: Mr Mah Weng Kwai
Seconder: Mr Roy Rajasingham

Resolution:

The Motion was unanimously carried.

Follow-up Action:

The Office Bearers including Puan Hendon Mohamed as Chairman of the National Legal Aid Committee, Mr Cecil Rajendra as Chairman of the Human Rights Committee and the Executive Director, met with the IGP on 20th May 1999. The IGP was accompanied by the Chiefs of the various branches. Amongst the issues raised were assault on remand prisoners, the need for police co-operation to allow LAC volunteer lawyers to mitigate on behalf of accused persons under the dock brief programme run by State Legal Aid Centres and the question regarding the security of witnesses resulting from the manner in which identification parades are carried out. They agreed to convene a meeting of State Chief Police Officers soon so that the latter could thereafter instruct the OCPDs in their respective districts to co-operate with the State Legal Aid Centres. The Bar Council’s memorandum was supported by documentary evidence. The Police were receptive and suggested that the Bar Council and the Police should have on-going meetings. The IGP also indicated that the National Consultative Council would be set up and the Bar Council would be invited to be a member.