Category: Constitution

The comments by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail that “no criminal offence appears to have been committed” in the Lingam Tape and that senior lawyer V.K.Lingam “was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to” (New Straits Times) were most outrageous and raise important questions, viz:

• his understanding of and commitment to judicial independence, integrity and accountability; and
• his fitness to continue as Attorney-General.

How can the chief legal officer of the government try to minimize the gravity of the judicial misconduct exposed by the Lingam Tape and shirk off his responsibility by claiming that Lingam was in a monologue as “There is no clear reference that he was talking to a top judicial officer”, when Anwar Ibrahim’s allegation that Lingam was talking to Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim sometime in 2002 when he was Chief Judge of Malaya was corroborated by the contents of the conversation?

Forty-eight hours have passed and neither Ahmad Fairuz nor Lingam had denied that there was such a telephone conversation between them, which would be the first reaction of anyone to a doctored video clip.

Ahmad Fairuz was contacted the same afternoon of Wednesday when Anwar made public the video recording, but his personal assistant relayed the message that the Chief Justice wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything. But Ahmad Fairuz had been in ex communicado in the past two days, although he would have no difficulty in accessing it on the Internet, as it was put up on Malaysiakini almost instantly the same day (recording over 4,000 hits since), as well as on many blogs and the Bar Council website. One Youtube site which uploaded the clip registered 23,150 hits in one day.

The silence of Lingam cannot be explained by the claim that he is overseas, particularly in the present era of 24/7 and instant communications when information travels at the speed of light and denials could be made instantly from any part of the globe.

It is also most noteworthy that Gani had not challenged the authenticity of the video recording of the telephone conversation. Continue reading “AG’s comments on Lingam Tape outrageous – is he for judicial independence, integrity, accountability?”

The appointment of Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff as the Chief Judge of Malaya is one up for the Conference of Rulers and one down for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi — as the debacle is a major setback to the prestige and authority of the Prime Minister as a result of the seven-month constitutional impasse and crisis.

The objection of the Conference of Rulers to the earlier nominee for the Chief Judge of Malaya resulting in the seven-month constitutional deadlock has proved to be fully justified and the Prime Minister most imprudent and ill-advised to give blind support to the proposal submitted by the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim.

The question crying out for answer is why the Prime Minister placed himself in such an embarrassing and indefensible position and for such a protracted length of time.

Isn’t there a proper mechanism to vet candidates whether for judicial appointments or promotions?

The Chief Justice must bear great responsibility for the constitutional debacle but from the constitutional standpoint, the Prime Minister cannot shirk final responsibility as the buck must stop at his desk.

Fairuz now says that he is waiting for an explanation from a Federal Court judge on his failure to write the grounds of judgments in more than 35 civil and criminal cases. Continue reading “CJM debacle – one up for Conference of Rulers and one down for Pak Lah”

As if there were not enough setbacks in the past two months to shatter public confidence in the independence, integrity and professionalism of institutions of state causing more and more Malaysians to ask the real meaning of the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations, another grave blow was delivered to such public confidence yesterday.

I am referring to the extraordinary dropping of the 37 charges against the so-called “Sultan of Klang” Datuk Zakaria Md Deros and five of his business partners pertaining to contravening the Companies Act 1965 — less than a week before the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations.

It would appear that the so-called “Sultan of Klang” enjoys immunities and privileges to the extent that he is a law unto himself and is not subject to the ordinary laws of the land binding of all Malaysians and even members of the true royalty.

Zakaria would have very exultant reasons to celebrate the 50th Merdeka anniversary on Friday, but he has left more and more Malaysians wonder what has happened to the country after half-a-century of independent nationhood that there is a lengthening catalogue of things very wrong with good governance, justice and nation-building in Malaysia.

Were the authorities serious in charging Zakaria with 37 offences under the Companies Act 1965 in the first instance, and if so, how could these charges be so summarily and flippantly withdrawn?

If the original 37 charges against Zakaria were just a sandiwara never meant to be taken or to be pursued seriously, then the reputation of the impartiality, independence, professionalism and integrity of the state institutions responsible for upholding law and order have been seriously tarnished, and suitable punitive action should be taken against the offenders.

If the original 37 charges against Zakaria had been preferred with a full sense of seriousness, then why were they dropped so summarily and frivolously? Was there interference with the process of law and the administration of justice, and if so, Parliament and the Malaysian people are entitled to a full explanation. Continue reading “27 charges against Zakaria dropped – another grave blow to public confidence less than a week to 50th Merdeka celebrations”

The call by Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim for the abolition of the common law system and favouring its replacement by Islamic law system is most unbecoming of the highest judicial officer of the land sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution and the Merdeka social contract.

Fairuz was also highly irresponsible in trying to divert attention from his failure to institute judicial reforms to restore public confidence in judicial independence, integrity and meritocracy.

In his speech opening a seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim on Tuesday, Fairuz said (as reported by Utusan Malaysia’s front-page headline news):

Muka Hadapan

Mansuh Common Law — Ketua Hakim Negara mahu perundangan lapuk Inggeris diganti
Oleh Zabry Mohamad

PETALING JAYA 21 Ogos — Ketua Hakim Negara, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim hari ini mencadangkan rujukan kepada Common Law Inggeris dimansuhkan daripada undang-undang sivil negara ini kerana ia menggambarkan minda pengamal undang-undang tempatan yang masih terjajah.

Beliau juga menegur sesetengah pengamal undang-undang yang terus mengguna pakai Common Law Inggeris dalam kes-kes perbicaraan tertentu.

Sambil menyifatkan mereka sebagai ‘katak di bawah tempurung penjajah’, Ahmad Fairuz menegaskan, gejala tersebut tidak seharusnya berlaku selepas 50 tahun Malaysia mencapai kemerdekaan. Continue reading “Abolish common law system – unbecoming of Fairuz as CJ as well as highly irresponsible to divert attention”

In the modern democratic era of accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance, the Malaysian public are entitled to information as to the causes of the constitutional crisis and impasse resulting from the deadlock between the Prime Minister and the Conference of Rulers over the filling of the seven-month vacancy of the Chief Judge of Malaya.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should not only provide Malaysians and in particular Members of Parliament this vital information, but also clarify and assure the nation that his nominee for the Chief Judge of Malaya and the subject of the constitutional crisis with the Conference of Rulers is not the Federal Court judge who have a backlog of at least 30 outstanding judgments accumulated from his High Court days which have yet to be written and delivered.

When Abdullah launched the National Integrity Plan (NIP) in May 2004, he said that “the integrity movement is comprehensive covering all levels or sectors of the government and society”.

There is also a section in the five-year plan, NIP Target 2008, on the enhancement of the administration of justice by the judicial bodies and institutions — a new national commitment on judicial accountability, transparency and integrity. The time has come to walk this talk.

Although the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim is on public record as saying that judges with a backlog of written grounds of judgment would not be considered for promotion and there is a court directive that judges should complete writing their grounds within eight weeks of a trial if there is a notice for an appeal, it is most shocking that the newspaper report last month that there is a Federal Court judge who has “at least 30 outstanding judgments accumulated from his High Court days that include dadah trafficking and murder cases” (New Straits Times 23.7.07) had not elicited any denial, clarification or response from the Chief Justice. Continue reading “Constitutional crisis (2) – PM’s assurance that CJM nominee not the Federal Court judge with over 30 outstanding judgments from High Court days?”

The country is faced with a full-blown constitutional crisis over the appointment of the third most important judicial office in the land, the Chief Judge of Malaya, which had been vacant for more than seven months since the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Normah Yaakob on January 5, 2007.

I first raised the issue of the paralysis of the judicial appointment process for the post of the Chief Judge of Malaya in Parliament during the Royal Address debate in March, and DAP MPs Karpal Singh (Bukit Glugor) and M. Kulasegaran (Ipoh Barat) and I have continued to demand to know why the country is still without a Chief Judge of Malaya whenever there was an opportunity in Parliament in the past five months but without getting any satisfactory answer.

Under Article 122B of the Constitution, the Chief Judge of Malaya “shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers”.

The appointment of the new Chief Judge of Malaya has not be able to get past the Conference of Rulers which have met twice since the retirement of Siti Normah, reflecting the constitutional crisis over the issue.

When the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who did not attend the recent meeting of the Conference of Rulers held at the end of last month as he was on private holidays overseas, was asked about the issue on his return, Abdullah said “he had proposed a candidate and it was now for the Chief Justice to conclude the appointment”. (NST 29.7.07)

After the Singapore Straits Times reported that the Conference of Rulers at its meeting last month had rejected the government’s nominee, New Straits Times quoted Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as saying that the the vacancy for the Chief Judge of Malaya is expected to be filled by August 31 and that the identity of the nominee was classified under the Official Secrets Act.

Although Ahmad Fairuz has denied that he had said that the appointment would be made by August 31, I understand that this statement by the Chief Justice is recorded on tape.

But the more important issue is why should the Chief Justice invoke the Official Secrets Act to suppress all reports referring to the official nominee for the post of Chief Judge of Malaya, whom I understand is one of the most junior Federal Court judges — as if such a nomination cannot withstand public scrutiny. Continue reading “7-month Constitutional crisis over Chief Judge Malaya – CJ must bear responsibility for root-cause”