|
Press Statement: Bar Council’s immediate response to the Report in the Borneo Post dated 10 June 2008 |
|
|
|
|
Contributed by Ambiga Sreenevasan
|
|
Tuesday, 10 June 2008 10:51pm |
|
 The
disclosures made today by High Court Judge Ian Chin J are both startling and
damning. They speak to forms of executive and other interference in the
judiciary which have undermined the institution. Judges must make known and if
necessary make public any such acts of interference by any party.
One of the more significant disclosures made by the Judge is that he was
informed by another High Court Judge Muhammad Kamil Awang J (as he then was),
that he had received a telephone call from the then Chief Justice asking the
latter to dismiss an election petition that was heard in 2001 in relation to the
Likas constituency elections in March 1999. This corroborates the similar
disclosure made by Muhammad Kamil Awang J himself in his judgment on that
election petition namely in the case of Harris Mohd Salleh v The Returning
Officer, Ismail Majin & Ors [2001] 3 CLJ 161. In that case, the Judge said:
“The only guide to a man is his conscience, the only shield to his memory is the
rectitude and the sincerity of his action. In my view, it is an insult to one’s
intelligence to be given a directive over the phone that these petitions should
be stuck off without a hearing, and above all, it is with prescience conscience
that I heard these petitions. God has given me the strength and fortitude, as a
lesser mortal, to act without fear or favour, for fear of a breach of oath of
office and sacrifice justice, and above all to truly act as a judge and not a
“yes-man”.”
Another disclosure by Ian Chin J about the conduct of a “boot camp” for judges
and judicial officers was equally shocking and should be investigated.
These allegations and all the other disclosures made by Ian Chin J must of
course be comprehensively looked into, not only by the Chief Justice but by all
other relevant authorities. Judges, both present and past, must be encouraged to
come forward and provide information of any such instances of interference so
that further action may be taken.
Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Bar Council
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 304/2008 : Invitation - HR Debate 2008
It may be cogent to remind my fellow lawyers interested that the appropriate passage cited above is on Page 183 of the Judgment delivered by Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang.
I believe it should read "prescient conscience" instead of "prescience conscience." Any comments to the contrary?
Stephen Tan Ban Cheng