Posted on

“Judges who accept bribes” – Ahmad Fairuz must take action or step down as Chief Justice

The Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim dropped a bombshell at the swearing-in ceremony of eight new judicial commissioners in Putrajaya on Thursday when he exposed gross judicial misconduct in the judiciary, including:

  • Judges who accept bribes;
  • Judges who were often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures while hearing their cases in court; and
  • Judges who were “constantly angry and foul-tempered”.

Ahmad Fairuz may have to step down as Chief Justice for tarnishing the image of the judiciary if he is not prepared to take action and substantiate his grave charges of judges accepting bribes or guilty of misconduct in acting unethically in socializing with parties while hearing their cases.

The Chief Justice had used the plural when he “hit out at judges who accept bribes”. Had he initiated action against “judges who accept bribes” under Article 124 of the Federal Constitution for the establishment of the judicial tribunal to remove these “rogue judges” or at least lodged police reports against them for full investigations to be started?

If Ahmad Fairuz had not initiated any action against “judges who accept bribes”, then the Chief Justice would be guilty of being a party to the commission of serious crimes which would not be compatible with his continued tenure as the highest judicial officer of the land. If he could not substantiate his allegation of judges accepting bribes, then he had made a most reckless and irresponsible statement seriously tarnishing the image of the judiciary.

Furthermore, what action had Ahmad Fairuz taken against judges for the judicial misconduct and unethical behaviour of “often seen socializing with lawyers, prosecutors and corporate figures” while hearing their cases in court or for “being constantly angry and bad-tempered”? Continue reading ““Judges who accept bribes” – Ahmad Fairuz must take action or step down as Chief Justice”

Posted on

Judicial accountability – will the Altantuny murder trial be brought forward from March 2008?

Last week, when making his controversial, ill-advised and ill-considered comment likening the proposal for an independent judicial commission on appointment and promotion of judges as akin to nudity rather than transparency, the Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim claimed that he was both an advocate and practitioner of judicial accountability and transparency.

Ahmad Fairuz said: “I started (as the Chief Justice) in 2003 with accountability and integrity. We have been transparent.”

I have three questions for Ahmad Fairuz concerning accountability and integrity of the Chief Justice.

Firstly, will the Altantunya Shaariibuu murder trial set for hearing in March 2008 be brought forward in line with the maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied” as well as his earlier statement that the March 2008 trial date is “too far off”?

The Star in a front-page headline of 6th January 2007 “March 7, 2008: Altantunya murder trial — TOO LONG A WAIT” quoted the Chief Justice:

“The date is too far off. But we are appointing 16 new judges. Hopefully the trial can be brought forward.”

Secondly, what has happened to his public undertaking on his appointment as Chief Justice some four years ago in 2003 to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics to restore public confidence in judicial independence, impartiality and integrity. Continue reading “Judicial accountability – will the Altantuny murder trial be brought forward from March 2008?”

Posted on

CJ Fairuz’s poor taste in equating Judicial Appointments Commission to “nudity”

The response of Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim likening proposal for an independent judicial commission on appointment and promotion of judges as akin to nudity rather than transparency is ill-advised, in poor taste and reflect badly on the office of Chief Justice.

Ahmad Fairuz may be unhappy with the proposal of an independent judicial commission to oversee the selection and promotion of judges, but he should realize that this proposal pre-dates his appointment to the top judicial post in the land and meant to enhance public confidence in the system of justice and in that context, there is nothing personal against any personal holder of the office.

Ahmad Fairuz should not have questioned the motives of those who had made the proposal, such as the Bar Council and several prominent lawyers, posing the rhetorical question:

“Are we to allow whoever has cases in court and who lost to decide on the fate of judges?”

He ignores the support of retired judges for the proposal.

While claiming to welcome any memorandum on the proposed independent judicial commission, Ahmad Fairuz made clear his opposition when he told the New Straits Times in Kota Baru after chairing a meeting with Kelantan judges yesterday:

“I started (as the Chief Justice) in 2003 with accountability and integrity. We have been transparent.

“But transparency should have its limits. Don’t tell me when we are transparent, we have to be nude. That is not transparency, that’s nudity.

“You want everything to be absolute? There is no such thing as absolute freedom or absolute transparency.

“That’s the way I look at things.”

In the first place, it is absolutely wrong and inapt to categorise the proposal of an independent Judicial Commission as an exercise in nudity rather than transparency, especially when this judicial reform had been adopted by other countries such as Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Secondly, the proposal for a Judicial Appointments Commission was not made only during Fairuz’s tenure as Chief Justice. Continue reading “CJ Fairuz’s poor taste in equating Judicial Appointments Commission to “nudity””