Category: Court

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under the Companies Act 1965 in the first instance, and if so, how could these charges be so summarily and flippantly withdrawn?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”

The admission by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail that it was a mistake when he decided not to give the court a reason for replacing the entire prosecution team in the Altantunya Shaariibuu murder trial has raised further questions.

Gani said he had replaced the entire team of prosecutors to ensure a “fair trial” to all parties concerned. He said he had taken Deputy Public Prosecutor Salehuddin Saidin out because he was seen playing “badminton” with trial judge Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin.

He was going to replace Salehuddin with the Chamber’s head of prosecution Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, but later realized that the latter socialized with the judge as well.

Two immediate questions are:

(1) How many of the DPPs in the AG’s Chambers now play badminton or socialize with judges? Is Gani Patail going to issue a Code of Conduct for his prosecutors and officers forbidding them from playing badminton or socializing with judges?

(2) Why didn’t Justice Datuk Mohd Zaki Md Yasin recuse himself from the trial for having socialized with the prosecution? Does the Judges’ Code of Ethics forbid judges from playing badminton or socializing with prosecutors?

If so, can disciplinary action be taken against Justice Mohd Zaki under Article 125(3B) which was amended last year to provide for sanctions to be imposed on judges for breaching provisions of the Code of Ethics? Continue reading “Socialising with prosecution – Can Altantunya murder trial judge be sanctioned?”