Pushing ahead with Judicial Reforms

There is a growing perception that judicial reforms may finally be gaining traction. 

Efficiency in court has increased tremendously with the Kuala Lumpur High Court and the Appellate courts disposing cases at a commendable rate. It is now not unusual for cases to be disposed by the High Court within nine months from the date of commencement, a far cry from the not so distant days of cases taking anything up to five or six years to be determined. 

This has not only been about managing the situation, or cracking the proverbial whip, it has equally been about embracing a new mindset and the technology that makes it a reality. And while questions are still being asked about the quality of justice, after all justice sped up will at times result in justice denied, I believe the merits of the changes we are experiencing outweigh their demerits. Having said that, this is a serious concern that must be addressed by the Judiciary, a matter I will return to.

On other fronts, eyebrows have been raised by several decisions over the past year or so that suggest an increasingly independent judiciary. Amongst them was the majority decision of the Court of Appeal striking down as unconstitutional section 15(5)(a) of the University and Universities Colleges Act last October. A short while later the High Court acquitted Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy charges. In July the High Court quashed the Home Minister’s declaration of Bersih 2.0 as an illegal organisation, while more recently in October, the High Court quashed the decision of the Home Minister rejecting Mkini Dotcom’s (the owners of Malaysiakini) application for a permit to publish a newspaper.

These decisions, and others like them, are important not just for what they concluded but equally for what they signify to Malaysians: that the Judges of the Malaysian courts are free to determine the issues before them as they see fit and without regard to any concerns, on their part, as to their prospects within the institution. With no intention of undermining the respect these decisions deserve, I believe that the judges felt free to do what it is they thought best principally because the Chief Justice has made it sufficiently clear to his judges that that is exactly what it is they are required to do.

If it is one thing that marks the Arifin Court, it is that the Chief Justice has, at least publicly, consistently expressed his belief in the need for an independent judiciary. While this may seem a truism to many of us, the sentiment is nuanced when we take into account the make-up of the judiciary.

Consider this. The Judicial Appointments Commission was established in 2009. It was established in part due to outcry over the controversial video recording of lawyer V K Lingam that resulted in the establishment of a Royal Commission of Enquiry that in turn made evident serious weaknesses in the way in which judges were appointed. These events led to an admission by the then Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Badawi, that the appointments process was such that the best persons for the job were not necessarily selected. The self-evident implications of this admission were, and still are, a matter of grave concern. 

It also cannot be ignored that in the period following the judicial crisis of 1988, the number of judges that were appointed from the Bar dwindled to a point of it being negligible. In the period after, the overwhelming majority of judges were appointed from the Attorney General’s Chambers, elevations being perceived by some as “promotions”.  Many had not directly experienced the traditions of the Bar or were given an opportunity to fully appreciate the distinct relationship between Bar and Bench.  This limited exposure had perhaps, in some cases, resulted in a blurring of the defining lines of judicial office and a tendency to respond to authority in a manner not entirely consistent with that august office. This may explain how it is things got to that point where the government felt a need to introduce reforms. 

And although I have no foundation for this, I would venture that the Judiciary has not been left unscathed by the vagaries of race and religious politics, and an Executive that over the years became accustomed to dominating the organs of the State without due regard to the separation of powers.

These are just some of the more important dimensions of the discussion at hand. They however shed some light into the complexity of instilling a sense of independence into an ailing institution. Like all institutions, however, strong leadership and leadership by example will go a long way. And I believe that the Chief Justice is striking the right notes.

This is not to say that more cannot be done. The Chief ought give consideration to concerns that the speedy disposal of cases by judges, in particular the Court of Appeal, has resulted in case loads that impair the ability of judges to do justice. In an effort to finish their lists of cases, some judges have tended to unreasonably restrict the time given to counsel to present their cases. In some cases, it is not apparent that written submissions had been properly digested by the presiding judges, a situation that might be explained by the fact that the case load, as punishing as it is, left them with little or not time to do the same. In fairness, this may have been as a result of submissions coming in late; the relentless schedule has had its toll on advocates as well. 

The Chief must also consider the quality of judgments being handed down leaves anything to be desired. This is not a matter for appeals, which are more properly utilised to address complex points of law. There is a growing concern at the Bar that the quality of judgments is declining. If this is the case, and perhaps the Chief should consider conducting an audit, then urgent steps must be taken to address this, perhaps by appropriate judicial training. This can also be addressed by requiring all judges, even those of the Court of Appeal, to write judgments on each of their cases. It is admittedly a time consuming process, but one with obvious benefits. 

And above all, the Chief must keep his ear to the ground. If he listens, he will hear what it is that is being said about his judges. For as much as lawyers may whinge, at the end of the day their lives are intertwined with those of the judges. The Bench and the Bar balance and keep each other afloat in the stormy seas of state.  

MIS

(First published in "Rule of Law", The Edge, 20.10.2012

Serving Justice, Straight Up

Serving justice, straight up

It took me a while to understand that in as much as contract, commercial, criminal, constitutional or any other field of law was important, the existence of a functioning system by which the law was applied and enforced was far more crucial. For without such a system, it would not matter at all that there were laws.

When I first graduated from law school, I believed that all things said and done we had such a system. I am almost certain now that we do not.

We have courts, some of them in very opulent buildings that are akin to palaces. We have judges at all levels, be it at the subordinate courts or into the dizzying heights of the judicial hierarchy. There is in place an Attorney General’s Chambers from which spring a number of federal counsel and deputy public prosecutors who represent the State in its legal endeavours. They are complemented by a host of lawyers who, together with their counterparts from the civil service, apply laws that have been duly enacted by legislative chambers and Parliament respectively.

Impressive, one could say. I however reserve my judgment. Just like cameras, there are “point and shoot” lawyers and judges, and there are the far more sophisticated and capable ones. Both serve their purpose but one category serves it far better, something to think about considering the legal system is one whose standard cannot be compromised for any reason at all. Lives, in the widest sense, are at stake. They are being put at risk by the kind of individuals being allowed into the system.

All this however does not directly answer the question of whether the system is one that is functioning effectively. In this, it must be understood that the ultimate arbiter of whether a legal system is effective is the public that the system is intended to serve. The level of public confidence in the system is the only yardstick by which this effectiveness can be measured.

The stark reality is that the average Malaysian entertains grave doubts about the integrity or competence or both of those who make up the system (and in this, I tar lawyers with the same brush). From a public confidence standpoint, it could be said that the system is not functioning.

We cannot blame them for so doubting. Controversy upon controversy, many of which were unnecessary and avoidable, have impacted. Suspicions have been given foundation by the findings and recommendations of a Royal Commission of Enquiry that lambasted the system and urged urgent corrective measures. One cannot fault the average Malaysian for thinking justice is no longer the sacrosanct quality that it is meant to be, having instead transformed into something pliable that can be moulded to convenience.

This has had ramifications it seems. Malaysians have no alternative but to take their cases to the courts, it is the only way in which they can have their legal disputes resolved. Faced with a system that they have come to perceive as lopsided and pliable, it appears that they have attempted to improve, or at the very least even out, their odds where they have been able to do so. If the system were seen and understood to be unyielding, this would not be occurring.

It is perception that fuels belief that the system is hardly working as it should. As a lawyer, this saddens me, not because I think it is an unfair assessment but because I can see why it is they might believe this to be the case. Over the last twenty years the Judiciary has taken a beating, inside and out. It seems like every Chief Justice since Tun Dzaiddin started his term with laudable declarations concerning the need for reform only to subsequently find that the problem areas were so entrenched that resolving them was neither easy nor possible in their limited terms of tenure. Promises unfulfilled have deepened distrust.

It is high time that those who manage the institutions in ours system of justice wake up to the hard truth that mere rhetoric and superficial changes will not serve any purpose in attempts to rebuild confidence. Efforts must be real and driven by a desire to deliver to Malaysians objective justice at its keenest. It is not enough to say that there are those in the system who do just that. Though that may be the case, there are seemingly those who do not. It must be understood why this is the case and what can be done. The situation is desperate and calls for extreme measures.

Crucially, the system must be seen to be delivering justice. It is a cardinal rule of justice that not only must it be done, it must be seen to be done. The appearance of impartiality is paramount in building public confidence in the system. In this, standards must be seen to be applied uniformly, without exception. Explanations as to why they are not, do not go very far in explaining away the fact that they are not.

Perception is key. Without the public having confidence in the system, justice will never be served.

(Malay Mail; 24th February 2009)

MIS

The Cost Of Winning

The Cost Of Winning

One cannot be faulted for thinking that those who claim the right to lead us understand that the system of constitutional democracy put in place by the Federal and State Constitutions circumscribes the authority and power of the Yang diPertuan Agong and their majesties the Malay Rulers.

They surely appreciate that this is particulars so in matters of governance where even if a royal discretion or prerogative is involved, such as is invoked where a Mentri Besar is appointed, such discretion is guided by constitutional prerequisites and that the process of checks and balances must necessarily inform the exercise of such discretion.

An aspect of this process is the taking of legal challenge against the Ruler concerned. The constitutional crisis’ in East Malaysia in 1966 and 1994 saw challenges against the Governors of Sarawak and Sabah respectively, for instance. The constitutional framework makes no distinction between a Sultan or Raja and a Governor where the exercise of such discretions is concerned. Both categories of personages are understood in law to be exercising constitutionally delineated discretion. Such exercises of power are open to being scrutinized by the courts of this country.

It is for that reason that it is said that the doctrine of separation of powers, so crucial to efficacious functioning of democracy, safeguards citizens from autocratic action on the part of any organ of this country. This is the bedrock that gives foundation to the sacred principle that no person is above the law.

I believe that this notion of guided discretion prompted the Prime Minister to say last March that the appointment of Datuk Ahmad Said as Menteri Besar by the Regent of Trengganu was unconstitutional. It is also a belief that the Regent had overstepped the constitutional limits of His Highness’ discretion that prompted UMNO assemblymen as well as UMNO agencies to protest the appointment and to stand by their preferred candidate, Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh. A similar situation in Perlis led to a well-publicized crisis within UMNO at around the same time.

In these incidents, and others like them, political parties and individuals had for their own reasons voiced their disagreement with the decision of a Ruler in the belief that the Ruler erred in going beyond what was legally permissible. There was no legal prohibition to them doing so, a state of affairs that remains unchanged. Such action cannot be criminalized for being seditious as the voicing of opinions aimed at showing that a Ruler had been mistaken is allowed. All leaders are capable of making mistakes and being able say that they have done so is a necessary part of democratic forms of government.

To say that such action amounts to treason is wholly incredible. Treason requires an intention to wage war, to cause bodily harm or death or to cause the deposing of a Ruler. Saying that the Ruler is wrong may be impolite or offensive but it can by no stretch of the imagination amount to treason, nor has it ever been suggested to amount to such.

Until now it would seem.

Mr Karpal Singh and his Pakatan Rakyat associates are in the line of fire and ironically, UMNO and its agencies have put them there. The charge: that they have committed treason and sedition in having publicly taken the position that the Sultan of Perak erred in having decided to allow the Barisan Nasional to form a government in Perak.

How what it is Mr Karpal and associates have said and done amounts to treason or sedition eludes understanding, just as how it differs in principle from what was done in Trengganu or Perlis last March. In as much some may have disagreed with those who protested the decisions of the Rulers in those States, they were entitled not only to their views but also to express those views. Their right to do so is a cornerstone of a system founded on the Rule of Law, one that Tun Mahathir relied on to strip away royal immunity when he was Prime Minister.

It is possible to infer from the manifest lack of basis for the fiery denunciations that behind them lurk questionable political objectives. The imminent UMNO assembly is more probably than not a factor that has shaped the way in which the recent “win” in Perak has been approached since.

The posturing and rhetoric is further so threatening in nature that it is not unreasonable to infer that a campaign of intimidation is underway. Its objective is self-evidently the communicating of a message to those inclined to challenge the legal validity of the appointment of the new Mentri Besar: that they do so at their own peril. Such conduct could fairly be characterized as being intended to subvert the due process of law. If so, this is a punishable contempt of court.

More worryingly, such conduct incites. Too often, political leaders get so lost in their politics to the extent that they fail to see that their rallying cries potentially have a less desirable kind of influence. In all societies there skulk individuals who take it upon themselves to force through a conclusion that they believe their community requires in supreme acts of deliverance. All they need is to receive the right message. Our leaders warn us about playing with fire yet they forget sometimes that it is they who ignite sentiments with potentially devastating consequences.

The situation in Perak has caused anger and pain. It may be that the only way in which the chapter can be closed is through a decision of the courts. For many, the decision itself may be less important than the process. An airing of grievances, such as a court hearing will allow for, is more often than not essential to the achieving of reconciliation. Resolution of this nature can only be in the interests of the state and its government, whoever forms it.

Though the Barisan Nasional may have won the day in securing the right to govern, it must ask at what cost to itself and, more importantly, to the rakyat. In this case, the winner does not take all.

(Malay Mail; 10th February 2009)

MIS

All The King's Men...

All The King's Men...

I wonder what it means for the future of this country that Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, a current UMNO favourite son and most certainly one whom the dizzying heights beckons, has taken the view that matters pertaining to the reform of the Judiciary are not a priority. As was reported in an article in The Sunday Star, the Honourable Member of Parliament for Jerlun questioned the need for judicial reform. He claimed that Malaysia would not crumble without these reforms and, in any event, they did not benefit the Malays or UMNO.

I would have thought that the question of whether the Judiciary and the wider system of justice are in need of reform is moot. Even without the acknowledgment by the Government earlier this year that steps had to be taken to restore confidence in the Judiciary, it is glaringly apparent that all is not as it should be. Standards of judicial competence are worryingly low as is public certainty of the integrity of the judicial process. This latter aspect is no longer a matter of speculation, delusion or political spin; the conclusions and recommendations of the Royal Commission of Enquiry on the VK Lingam video made things explicitly clear: things need to be sorted out.

Matters of judicial competence and integrity impact across the board; they are neither race nor political-party specific. Bad or skewed decisions hurt the wider legal profession and the nation as a whole as much as the litigants involved. One of the biggest difficulties practicing law at the present is the lack of certainty in the law, in part for there being a slew of decisions that have been adjudged without due regard to principle or precedent. In becoming precedents themselves, these decisions have undermined the foundations of not only the legal system but also the system of commerce that it supports. Commerce being wholly dependent on the certainty that only an effectively functioning legal system can provide, the current state of affairs is anathema.

It is for this reason that when entering contracts pertaining to Malaysia, many a commercial party now take pains to stipulate that the law of the contract is not Malaysian law and that dispute resolution is to take place outside the country. That is a cause for great concern, one that we have ignored for far too long to our own detriment. A weak system of justice does no favours for the country in which it exists; it is a sure path to failure for driving investment away, much as we are currently experiencing.

Is this not a matter that affects the Malays and UMNO as much as the rest of us?

This is not just a matter of our all being Malaysians and having a common future. Malays are as much litigants before the courts as any other Malaysian. They are as involved in business and corporate deals as much as the next person is, even more some would say. A cursory perusal of the law journals would show just how far, just as they would the fact that they accuse, or are being accused, of cheating and breaching duties, or murder, rape or theft, just like anyone else. UMNO itself is capable of being dragged into court just like any other society and has in fact been there before.

Surely a stronger, independent and more competent Judiciary would benefit these quarters, as much as they would everyone else? After all, justice is supposed to be blind.

I think Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir has much to offer this nation, in parliament and outside it. His reasoning in this instance is however sorely misconceived. The said article suggests that he has formed the view that the reforms are an expression of anti-Mahathirism, notably that of Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. Though I will not speak for the former Minister in charge of legal affairs, he is more than capable of doing that for himself, I will say that the potential UMNO Youth Chief may have mistakenly confused an articulation of the need for reform with a personal attack on Tun Mahathir.

The call for reform started long before Datuk Zaid Ibrahim made headway in UMNO. It was prompted by the serious consequences of the 1988 attack on the Judiciary and the Rule of Law. Many in one form or the other, including the Judiciary itself and great legal luminaries such as His Royal Highness Sultan Azlan Shah, have taken it up. Their message is clear; something needs to be done.

The Malaysian Judiciary was once respected throughout the Commonwealth, it no longer is. Its foundations have suffered a beating from the shockwaves that emanated from the events of 1988. The testimony at the Lingam Commission hearings showed how much they still reverberate and, for that, how precarious the position of the institution is.

Is it in danger of collapsing, taking the nation along with it? Only time will tell. The question for us all, Datuk Mukhriz included, is whether we want to wait to find out.

(Malay Mail; 14th October 2008)

MIS

Free RPK: It's Not Over

Let me first apologise to you for not having given you an update yesterday. It was a trying day, the culmination of a period of work and stress that began the day RPK was detained. Not just for me but for the other members of the team, in particular Ashok Kandiah and Neoh Hor Kee.

You would have read of how the application was originally fixed for the 26th of September. It was through the enormous efforts of both these lawyers that the hearing was brought forward as it was. It was also through their efforts that the necessary court papers and affidavits (statements on oath) by RPK were obtained as quickly as they were. It was primarily due to their efforts that when, as lawyers say, I got up on my hind-feet in court yesterday, we were ready to give it the best shot we could. I believe that the case we would have mounted for RPK would have been virtually unassailable.

But out attempts were impeded.

I say impeded because at this juncture we do not know whether the High Court is going to hear the original section 73 application now that the Minister has issued a detention order. A fresh application can also, and will be, filed to challenge that order. To be fair to the judge concerned, Suraya Othman J, she considered herself bound by precedent that she thought tied her hands. She acted fairly, albeit conservatively.

As much as some of us may think otherwise, RPK's case is one of many that the judge has to deal with. We must also keep in mind that the judge has not dismissed or struck out RPK’s application even though this was what Federal Counsel sought. It is now for us to attempt to convince the judge that there is merit in proceeding with this application even though she will not be able to order the release of RPK based on this application alone. I would like to think that we still have a chance.

A second habeas corpus application will also be filed to challenge the Minister’s order. We started working on it yesterday. In truth, we are handicapped; the ISA precludes comprehensive review of such an order. Added to this is the legal position that such an order is issued by the Minister at his subjective discretion. The courts have been reluctant to interfere with the Minister’s discretion, save on procedural grounds, on the basis that, firstly, the law does not permit otherwise and secondly, the Minister knows best about national security.

This is the massive obstacle we are faced with.

This is one of the reasons why a section 73 detention is converted to a section 8 detention when the IGP is confronted with a habeas corpus application; the issuance of the Minister's order narrows the scope of review and permits the Minister to shield himself behind a veil of national security. RPK is not the first victim of such a strategy. We experienced the same difficulty during the so-called JI detentions in late 2002.

There are however peculiarities about RPK’s detention that may give us footholds to ease our ascent. The media has reported that the Minister issued the detention order on the recommendations of the police. These pertained to the so-called anti-Islamic articles that RPK is supposed to have written. We at least know the basis of the detention and are able to bring it into focus when we get to court.

There are also no other legal tricks that can be pulled by the Ministry. The issuance of the detention order is as problematic for RPK as it can get. Some have said that this makes the detention virtually immune from challenge. I would like to think that the interests of justice can always be served if we remain hopeful of finding the path to it.

Every case in court brings us into uncharted territory and with it surprises. I have had my share. In 2001, Justice Hishamuddin ordered the release of Abdul Ghani Haroon and N Gobalakrishnan. He also prevented the police from re-arresting the two. I was in court the day he pronounced the orders and the sheer exultation I felt as he did remains with me to this day as has the awareness that there are those who will do the right thing when times seem darkest.

RPK and the other civil society leaders who have shown us the way started a process to transform this country. This legal campaign is a part of it as is the mounting civil society pressure against the ISA that have spring-boarded off his detention and that of Theresa Kok, Tan Hoong Cheng and the HINDRAF 5. RPK knew what would happen and lent himself to the process. For that reason above all, he is firmly ensconced in my mind as a patriot.

We must not lose faith. The fight has not ended, it has just begun.

MIS

Rule By Law

It has become manifest that the Rule of Law has collapsed in Malaysia.

Even if Anwar Ibrahim were to be found guilty of sodomy, the court of public opinion would have acquitted him. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister were shown to be wholly unconnected with the events underlying the Altantuya murder trial, that court would have already found otherwise. It would not matter if all the police officers, prosecutors and judges in the country were to say otherwise or if all the untruths, one way or the other, were undone. Malaysians, or at least a very large number of them, have lost faith in the system.

The Rule of Law does not exist merely for there being present the institutions of the administration of justice. Courts, prosecutors, a legal profession and a police force do not in themselves give rise to the Rule of Law. That can only occur if they collectively function in a manner that allows for the full confidence of the Malaysian public. Without such confidence, these institutions are nothing more than empty shells.

There is no longer a basis for continued public confidence in these institutions. Where the police and the Judiciary are concerned, this is a state of affairs that has for all purposes and intents been formally recognized by two Royal Commissions of Enquiry. The office of the Attorney General is suborned to the Executive and its impartiality has been put in doubt, its decisions and conduct having become increasingly questionable. The legal profession has been largely neutered by self-interest or the need for self-preservation.

Corruption or abuses of power are perceived as permeating throughout.

The intensifying sequence of events that has played out these last few weeks has done little to build confidence in the system. If at all, it has eroded what little faith there was.

The need for reform is widely acknowledged, even by the Government. That little or no real reform has taken place is similarly widely known, as is the politicking that stands in the way. A system that works to vested interest, even if it is a shell propped up by laws that have been beyond challenge, is after all a system with value for those whose interests it serves. In it, existence is a game of chance played out in an arena of fear and unchecked power, and umpired by laws utilized in aid of the arbitrariness of Government.

We should not fear and yet that is what we do. For how can it be otherwise under a Rule By Law. Under it, might is always right.

MIS