Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria says any attack on the judiciary which undermines public confidence in the institution amounts to an attack on the administration of justice. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, January 10, 2015.The nation's top judge and the Attorney-General today took exception to attacks on the judiciary by lawyers, saying they are unwarranted and amount to an attack on the administration of justice.Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria and Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail in their speeches at the opening of the legal year made special reference to The Malaysian Insider report on May 22.The article titled "Judiciary comes under attack for not respecting the rule of law" had said that most Malaysian judges failed to recognise that the Federal Constitution was the supreme law of the land and that was the reason public law litigation was dead in this country."I must say it is disheartening to note that a handful of lawyers have repeatedly made use of public media and public fora to make unjustified criticism against the judiciary, and more so on the decisions of the court, knowing full well that as members of the Malaysian Bar they are obliged to act with candour, courtesy and fairness."And any attack on the judiciary which undermines the confidence of the public in this institution amounts to an attack on the administration of justice," Arifin said.Gani, who departed from his set text, said there were reports in the alternative media where lawyers made scurrilous remarks about the judiciary."Criticism must be made at the right place and manner. One should not criticise for the sake of criticising," he said.Gani said the Attorney-General's Chambers had a responsibility to protect and defend the integrity of the judiciary.In the report, lawyer Tommy Thomas said there were a category of judges who over the years merely paid lip service to the supremacy of the constitution."That has not changed much now and I will likely lose constitutional cases before them," he told a panel discussion at a public forum on the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Malaysia, jointly organised by the Malaysian Bar and the United Kingdom-based Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.Thomas, who has been in practice since 1976, also said it was difficult for litigants to get leave in the High Court to mount a challenge against arbitrary decisions made by public authorities."The Attorney-General, who is the custodian of public interests, comes to court to object to the leave application," he had said.Thomas said lawyers could argue brilliantly by submitting cases and legal principles on constitutional and administrative laws before these judges, but it was difficult to woo them."So public law in this country is in a sad state and constitutional law is especially, really dead," he added.Thomas, a regular feature in the superior court rooms in Putrajaya, said he had also observed that only the presiding judge in the Federal Court dominated proceedings although a five-man bench sat to hear appeals."Four other judges who flanked the chairman on his right and left are normally silent and do not contribute much during proceedings."As such, he said he did not see any merit of having an enlarged bench to hear ordinary "bread and butter" cases."So public law in this country is in a sad state and constitutional law is especially, really dead," Thomas was responding to a question from the floor on whether a full quorum should hear public interest cases.Another speaker at the forum, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar was also critical about the judiciary and said unlike the past, the judiciary no longer had prolific members on the bench.Malik said the Judicial Appointments Commission which was set up in 2009 was not transparent "as we do not know what they do behind closed doors".Arifin in his speech today said the allegation that public law was dead was an inaccurate statement in the light of a slew of decisions in the past year where the Malaysian courts have upheld constitutional rights vigorously.He said the Bar had also long been tolerant of declining standards and professionalism of a small number of members of the profession.Responding to claims that the JAC of which Arifin is chairman was not transparent, he said the selection process could not be conducted in public."An annual report of the JAC is tabled in Parliament, detailing out the activities. I am confident there is considerable more transparency since its formation compared (with) appointments prior to that period."JAC was set up in 2009 and commission members consist of five judges of the Federal Court and four eminent people appointed by the prime minister after consulting the stakeholders.Arifin said only persons with highest calibre were appointed as judges by the JAC whose recommendations would be made to the prime minister. – January 10, 2015.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น