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

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Raja Aziz Addruse

The government has finally decided to set up a royal commission to look into the video clip showing a lawyer engaged in a telephone conversation with a senior judge, allegedly brokering judicial appointments.

After two months of dragging its feet, the government now appears to have come to recognise that the implications of the video clip are indeed very serious and warrant a thorough inquiry.

When the video clip was released on Sept 19, the government did not quite seem to grasp the ramifications of the telephone conversation. It did not seem to see the need for urgent action. 

The deputy prime minister made it a point to stress the importance of establishing the veracity of the video clip before ‘jumping to any conclusions’. The Attorney-General’s immediate response was that his office was ‘studying’ the video clip and that he would reserve his comments until they had decided what to do.

What concerned the government more was whether the video clip was genuine; and when the government set up the ‘independent’ three-man panel it confined the terms of reference to determining whether the video clip was genuine.

A suggestion made to him that there was a crisis in the judiciary was emphatically dismissed by Moh Nazri Abdul Aziz, the de facto law minister, with “What crisis. I don’t see any crisis!”

His denial ignores the realities of the situation. There has been a continuing crisis in the judiciary right from 1988 when the lord president and two most senior Supreme Court judges were dismissed from office in what has since been described as the ‘Assault on the Judiciary’.

When Hamid Omar (who had chaired the constitutional tribunal that recommended Salleh Abbas’ dismissal as lord president) was himself appointed to succeed Salleh (photo), public confidence in the judiciary began to decline: the judiciary was seen to be no longer capable of being independent.

In 2000, Mohamed Suffian Hashim, the former lord president, in his last public appearance at a Reference held by the Bar Council for the late Wan Suleiman Pawanteh (one of the two Supreme Court judges dismissed) said of the judiciary which he had helped put on the world map: “I had predicted that our judiciary would take a whole generation to recover from the assault. Now that more than 12 years have elapsed, I doubt if the judiciary would recover in a generation from today.

Judges who joined in downing their boss have been rewarded by promotion. Judges who did not, have been cowed into silence. Judges are at sixes and sevens. Some daren’t speak to each other. While there are judges whose integrity and impartiality have never wavered, the public perception is that the judiciary as a whole can no longer be trusted to honour their oath of office. When I am asked what I thought, my usual reply is that I wouldn’t like to be tried by today’s judges, especially if I am innocent.”

When he took office as the Chief Justice of Malaysia that year, Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah frankly admitted that public confidence in the judiciary had eroded in the past few years and was at its lowest ebb.

Restoring respect

The implication from the video clip that the appointments of judges could be brokered and that they would be rewarded for making the `correct’ decisions in controversial cases has tarnished the image of the judiciary even more. Contrary to the protestations of the de facto law minister, there is a crisis in the judiciary.

There is an urgent need to try to gradually regain for the judiciary the high respect it once had not only nationally but also internationally. For that to be achieved there has to be a genuine desire on the part of the government to accept that our democracy as established by the Federal Constitution is governed by the rule of law, with the judiciary as an integral part of the democratic system, and that the judiciary, if it is to play its proper and rightful rol, must be independent, impartial and competent.

The task of the royal commission of inquiry should be to make such recommendations as it considers necessary in order to restore public confidence in the judiciary. For that purpose its terms of reference should be such as would empower it:

(1) to call for anyone wishing to do so to submit representations and, if called upon, to appear before it to be heard;

(2) to look into procedures which currently exist for appointing and promoting judges with a view to making such improvements as may be warranted to ensure transparency and an independent, impartial and competent judiciary;

(3) to look into allegations of acts of corruption or improper conduct on the part of judges, including those which have been made in reports lodged with the police or other investigating authorities; and

(4) to identify the causes of the loss of public confidence in the judiciary.

In his keynote address at the recent Malaysian Law Conference, the prime minister admonished the Bar Council for the ‘Walk for Justice’ which it organised to highlight its concern with the deteriorating condition of the judiciary and the importance of appointing a royal commission of inquiry. The council was reminded that, as a body whose opinion is widely respected not just locally but also internationally, it should recognise the repercussions of its actions and any stand it takes must be in the best interests of the country as a whole.

He felt that the ‘Walk for Justice’: “…sent negative vibes to domestic and foreign investors ….undermining the tireless efforts of industry and government in attracting investments and subsequently, in creating employment and providing new economic opportunities the future of this country depends on, among others, the political stability and societal peace which have been preserved for so many years."

That is the type of reasoning people use to justify offering bribes (and thereby encourage corruption) - it is in the interest of their business. It also overlooks an important point of principle - an independent, impartial and competent judiciary is indispensable in a democracy and is the birth right of all Malaysians under the Federal Constitution. They are entitled to have it. Principle cannot be sacrificed at the alter of convenience.

We should not forget, too, the advice Mohd Dzaiddin gave to judges soon after he assumed office, that the erosion of confidence in the judiciary deters foreign investments and that multinational corporations and foreign investors are reluctant to invest because they perceive that there is no level playing field in the courts and preferred arbitration outside Malaysia in the event of disputes arising.

To quote him, “It is in the interest of everyone that the administration of justice should function well and the courts are efficient….”

Right-thinking Malaysians will be holding their breath for the government to see its way to do the right thing to repair the damage which the Assault on the Judiciary of 1988 has done to the judiciary, to democracy and to the image of this country, for almost 20 years.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed