|
Press Release: The Judicial Appointments Commission: Hopes Dashed? |
|
|
|
|
Contributed by Ambiga Sreenevasan
|
|
Thursday, 26 June 2008 03:24pm |
|
 •
Bar Council expresses doubts over JAC plan
On 17 April 2008, the Prime Minister received a standing ovation from hundreds
of lawyers after he made two long-awaited announcements, namely, that the Judges
who were dismissed or suspended in the 1988 crisis would be compensated and that
the Government would set up a Judicial Appointments Commission.
The first issue of the 1988 crisis appears to have been resolved between the
Government and the individual Judges concerned. What remains outstanding on this
is the legal review into the 1988 crisis which has been undertaken by a panel
appointed by Lawasia, International Bar Association, Transparency International
and the Malaysian Bar, and which should release its findings in the near future.
The first meaningful step towards Judicial Reform has thus taken place.
However, the second and vital step of the setting up of the Judicial
Appointments Commission has stalled. The Bar fails to understand why. There was
an expectation that only the “nuts and bolts” of the Judicial Appointments
Commission remained to be worked out. After all, the other principal
stakeholders, that is, the Attorney General and the Judiciary, had welcomed the
Prime Minister’s announcement on the setting up of a Judicial Appointments
Commission. Even the Royal Commission into the “Lingam Tape” recommended that
such a commission be set up.
We therefore assumed that in principle, everyone agreed on the obvious need for
a Judicial Appointments Commission.
But is that the case?
Are all the stakeholders in the Administration of Justice ad idem (like-minded)
on this issue? Are they all committed to the setting up of the Judicial
Appointments Commission or is there some reluctance somewhere? It was reported
that some members of cabinet need persuasion about the Judicial Appointments
Commission.
Who are these members?
More importantly, what are their objections?
It is only if all parties make their concerns known either to each other or
publicly, that they can be addressed and debated. Everyone is entitled to their
views but openly discussing and debating them will allow for a well thought
through model to emerge. The concern is that there may be stumbling blocks
simply because there are those who do not want the Judicial Appointments
Commission to see the light of day.
The public is entitled to know who is objecting to the setting up of the
Judicial Appointments Commission and why.
The Malaysian Bar has a genuine fear that the Judicial Appointments Commission
will share the same fate as that of the IPCMC, which has also stalled. We
understand that much discussion of these views goes on “behind the scenes”.
Perhaps it is time to have open discussions of such matters of national interest
so that those who lobby for a particular point of view are made accountable for
that point of view.
A definite timetable must be set by the Government to show its commitment to the
Judicial Appointments Commission and its resolve in seeing it through.
The Malaysian Bar has made known its views. Our proposal for the Judicial
Appointments Commission is available on our website. We are prepared to discuss
our views publicly, hear other views, and arrive at a solution that serves the
interests of the nation.
We trust that the promise and hope that moved us to rise to our feet on 17 April
will not be dashed against the rocks. If so, it will be a colossal loss, not
just to us but also to the nation.
Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar
26 June 2008
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 304/2008 : Invitation - HR Debate 2008
I think the Bar Council has to stop being so naive if it wants to descend truly into the arena of politics. That it knew full well the fate of the IPCMC, and all the other Commissions held with a view to improve the police to have been futile, I am not sure why the Bar Council expected the JAC to have a different fate. What is more the Bar Council should be fully aware that ours is a government of announcements and pronouncements and little else. To give this PM who has been accused in the media by his own mentor as a liar (his own interests notwithstanding) and proven his faithlessness to the truth time and time should have at least instilled some semblance of restraint that Evening of The Ovation. To watch the entire Northern corridor that was launched to great fanfare by him unravel with the lack of approvals and mindfulness for the people which he launched should have given some pause for thought. But there was none that Night of the Standing Ovation.
What that standing ovation looked that night was praising politicians in the hope that they will look favourably upon us and cooperate with us, which looked pathetic and desperate. Has dignity at the Bar sunk so low that we have to do these song and dances to get what we want? Are we lawyers or full monty strippers?
I think the Bar Council should stop this political play and try to be nice and 'cooperative' with these politicians who have only recognize one kind of interest, that of the self. The Bar Council should remind itself of its motto of seeking justice through the law as well as ethics - not politics or flattery which is sadly becoming more and more the standard operating procedure.
May this lesson be learned, remembered and not repeated.
Fahri Azzat