In completely excluding the Bar Council members as members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry in the Lingam Tape, the government is only undermining its own case and cause that it is concerned about the restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said yesterday that there was no possibility that Bar Council members could become royal commissioners themselves.
He said: “There is no chance of that happening. How can they act fairly and be unbiased if they have already marched against the judiciary. They have already made their stand.”
This is classic perverse illogic. The 2,000 lawyers who participated in the historic “March for Justice” in Putrajaya on 26th September 2007 did not march against the judiciary. They marched against a judiciary which is subservient, decadent and corrupt. But they also marched for an independent, honest and incorruptible judiciary.
Going by Nazri’s perverse illogic, isn’t the Executive itself compromised by the 19-year history of a tainted judiciary, because of the acts of omission and commission by the Executive, which should render the Ministers unfit and unqualified to exercise powers to appoint members of the Royal Commission concerned about the independence and integrity of the judiciary?
Cabinet Ministers cannot feign innocence in the nearly two-decade-long ravages and degradation of the Judiciary as they are fully part of the process in the undermining of the independence of the judiciary and the undermining of the fundamental doctrine of the Separation of Powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.
Let good sense prevail. The Bar Council should not only be allowed to take part in the Royal Commission hearings, the Bar Council President Ambiga Sreenevasan should be seriously considered as a member of the Royal Commission to ensure its acceptability, credibility and legitimacy.
Nazri’s statement yesterday is a cause of concern for he seems to confirm the worst fears about the Royal Commission of Inquiry — that it would have very narrow and restricted terms of reference.
In declaring that the government was happy with the present system of appointing judges despite calls to set up an independent judicial appointments and promotions commission, Nazri might have inadvertently disclosed the restrictive nature of the Royal Commission’s terms of reference.
If so, then the terms of reference and scope of power of the Royal Commission of Inquiry when announced, will only spark a new outrage and controversy inimical to the speedy restoration of national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.