Category: Judiciary

The Cabinet must prove Tun Dr. Mahathir wrong that it is “half-past six’ by establishing a wide-ranging and unfettered Royal Commission of Inquiry on Wednesday to deal with the root-and-branch problem of the crisis of confidence in the judiciary going back for 19 years and not just deal with the “tip of the iceberg” of the Lingam Tape.

International Islamic University constitutional law expert Professor Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari is right his interview with New Sunday Times in describing the Lingam Tape as “just the tip of the iceberg” after the state of the judiciary after 1988.

This led to the question — “If the video clip is the tip, what is the iceberg?” and the following answer in “Putting confidence back in judiciary”:

“A: How the people are selecting the judges, how the judges are having behind-closed-door relationships with lawyers, and how lawyers manage to predict or determine the outcome of cases.

“This is something very serious when it comes to suits. If this is the case, then people won’t have confidence in the judiciary.

“The judiciary’s strength is the public’s confidence. In law, you don’t have to establish bias: if the person cannot convince you of his or her integrity, then he’s got to disqualify himself.

“The mere likelihood (of bias) is good enough to establish a real bias. The moment it (the confidence) is lost, it is difficult to get it back.”

Earlier in the interview, there was a specific Q & A on the “scope of the inquiry”, viz: Continue reading “RCI on Lingam Tape – test of whether Mahathir is right that Cabinet is “half-past six””

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. Continue reading “Ambiga as commissioner to ensure credibility and legitimacy of Royal Commission of Inquiry”

Malaysians are utterly confused as to what the Cabinet decided on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the Judiciary yesterday.

Did yesterday’s Cabinet, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawai was in Singapore for the ASEAN Summit, make the decisions on the terms of reference, scope of power and composition which are to be announced by the Prime Minister — as was the impression given by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in his comments to the press at the Parliament lobby?

Or did the Cabinet yesterday just decided that decisions on these aspects of the Royal Commission of Inquiry are put off to the next Cabinet meeting, as appears to be gist of what Abdullah said in Singapore last evening?

Whatever the case, it paints a picture of a bumbling and shambolic Cabinet which is neither serious nor professional in handling vital national issues, especially one so critical in determining Malaysia’s international competitiveness such as national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

It has taken the Prime Minister and the Cabinet two months to decide that there should be a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, when this would have been the right, proper and immediate thing for a government which is serious about accountability, integrity and good governance to do.

Why is the Abdullah government continuing to drag its feet on the Royal Commission of Inquiry, as if this is the least of its concerns?

Furthermore, why has the Haider Panel Report not yet been made public, another implicit undertaking of the Prime Minister? What has the government got to hide in refusing to immediately making public the Haider Report? Continue reading “Lingam Tape RCI – what actually did the Cabinet decide yesterday?”

I am very disturbed by the statement by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak last evening that there would be no immediate announcement of the Cabinet’s decisions today on the terms of reference, scope of power and membership of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.

Najib, who will be chairing the Cabinet meeting this morning as the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is in Singapore for the ASEAN Summit, must be reminded that it does not serve the cause of public confidence for the government to keep mum after the Cabinet decisions on the terms of reference and composition of the Royal Commission of Inquiry as it will only reinforce widespread anxieties and suspicions that “the leopard cannot change its skin” and that the Royal Commission of Inquiry would be so cribbed, cabined and confined by its terms of reference and scope of power that it would be quite useless in making significant contributions to end the 19-year crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

Malaysians expect the Cabinet to set an example of “first-world” and “first-class” mentality which does not make a mockery of the pledge of Abdullah to lead an administration characterized by openness, accountability, transparency and integrity.

If the Cabinet slams the Official Secrets Act on its decisionss on the Royal Commission of Inquiry today, refusing to announce them and to ban any reporting or disclosure of the Cabinet decisions, how is the Abdullah administration more open, accountable and transparent than the previous administrations? Instead, we seem to be going into reverse.

If the Cabinet this morning has taken decisions on the Royal Commission of Inquiry, then let Malaysians be informed about them without any delay or the Abdullah Cabinet will be setting a most undesirable example of being evasive and opaque instead of openness, accountability and transparency – completely antithetical to Abdullah’s pledge of wanting to lead a Malaysia with “First World Infrastructure, First-World Mentality”. Continue reading “RCI on Lingam Tape – refusal to announce Cabinet decisions today does not serve the cause of public confidence”

I am taken by surprise at the Bernama report quoting the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz as saying that the names of candidates for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and Judiciary will be tabled at tomorrow’s Cabinet.

This is because the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has given Malaysians the impression that the Cabinet tomorrow will decide on the Royal Commission’s terms of reference, while the Cabinet the following week on the composition of the Royal Commission.

Now the whole process of establishing the Royal Commission of Inquiry seems to have been telescoped, without any consultation whatsoever whether on its terms of reference or composition. This is quite ominous.

I had proposed that scholar Prince, Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr. Nazrain Shah will be a very good choice as Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to restore confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, although the ideal candidate would be Sultan Azlan Shah especially as he was Lord President during the golden era of the Malaysian judiciary a quarter of a century ago.

I had also suggested some names formerly from the judiciary as appropriate members of the Royal Commission, namely fomer Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah, former Court of Appeal judges Datuk Shaikh Daud and Datuk N. H. Chan and former High Court judge and leading Malaysian jurist Datuk Seri Visu Sinnadurai.

Today, I wish to propose some names from the legal and non-legal circles who will be regarded by all sectors of Malaysian society as eminently qualified to serve on the Royal Commission which must play a critical role to restore national and interenational confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary after almost two decades of ravages and degradation, viz: Continue reading “Commendable candidates for RCI – Tunku Aziz, Raja Aziz Addruse, Param Cumaraswamy, Yeo Yang Poh and Chooi Mun Sou”

Although the Cabinet last week decided on the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal, and it is to decide on its terms of reference on Wednesday, I am very concerned that there had been no consultation process whatsoever on its terms of reference and composition in the past five days.

This is a matter of grave concern as all indications point to a very restricted terms of reference which is going to spark a new outcry, as Ministers are still in thick denial of the need for far-reaching judicial reforms to check the rot in the past two decades to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.

This could be fathomed from the statements of two of the three Ministers who had been appointed to study the Haider Report on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.

Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad gave very clear indication that the terms of reference will be a very restricted one when he said that the royal commission would have the power to call anyone to assist in its inquiry. Continue reading “RCI on Lingam Tape – grave concerns as no consultation whatsoever and indications of restricted terms of reference”

The welcome for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s announcement of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape scandal will have to be conditional as there is disturbing indication that it will be a very restricted and circumscribed inquiry denied the task to resolve the long-standing national and international crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary which had gone from bad to worse for nearly two decades.

It is most unusual and not a very good sign that Abdullah’s announcement of a royal commission came solely from a Bernama report instead of a proper media conference before a battery of local and foreign journalists.

Abdullah had stumbled from one faux pax to another in the mishandling of the Lingam Tape scandal, taking two full months to arrive at the decision to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry, when such a decision should have been made right from the very beginning when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim made public the first eight minutes of the 14-minute Lingam Tape if the Prime Minister had been serious with his pledges of integrity and a trustworthy government, two of the ten principles of Islam Hadhari.

Abdullah said in the Bernama report that the Cabinet had decided at its last meeting on Wednesday to set up the royal commission and the Cabinet will decide next Wednesday on the commission’s terms of reference. The members of the royal commission will be determined after its terms of reference were finalized.

Something is clearly amiss, which does not reflect well on the Cabinet with regard to the professionalism, competence or high standards of the Cabinet decision-making process. Continue reading “RCI on Lingam Tape – hold your welcome with disturbing indication it will be very restricted inquiry”

From the statement by the Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim that the government was open to the possibility of setting up a royal commission on the “Lingam” videoclip, it is evident that there is a significant momentum which will make any failure to establish such a Royal Commission of Inquiry a direct, personal and major crisis of confidence for the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Early this month, when I told Parliament that I had seen and vouched for the existence of the second part of the 14-minute Lingam Tape, before Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim released another 10 seconds of the six-minute portion which had been withheld from the public so far, there was no surprise, astonishment or demand from the government or Haidar Panel that I reveal the details or the source.

This could only mean that by that time, all those involved in authority knew that the Lingam Tape was genuine and that any attempt to deny or ignore it would be at their grave personal peril in terms of public credibility and integrity. Continue reading “Raja Nazrain very good choice as Chairman of RCI to restore confidence in judiciary”

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz announced yesterday that three senior ministers have been appointed to study the three-man Haidar Panel report on the Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice on fixing of judicial appointments and court judgments.

Nazri said that the three Ministers, i.e. Home Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad, Culture and Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim and he himself, were given the task by the Cabinet due to their legal background and because all three had been in charge of law affairs in their ministerial portfolios and to make recommendations on the appropriate action to be taken at the next Cabinet meeting on Wednesday.

The Cabinet had also decided that each minister be given a copy of the report.

Two questions immediately come to mind.

Firstly, why wasn’t the Haider Report made public immediately? Why must Cabinet Ministers read the Haider Report first, to find out whether it is good or bad for the government, before deciding whether it should be made public?

We should follow the best international practices of countries which fully practice accountability, transparency and integrity where such inquiry reports, whether by Royal Commission or inquiry committees, are made public at the same time they are submitted to the appointing authorities — to show that the government has nothing to hide, regardless of the findings.

Secondly, why should there be another three-man Ministerial Committee to study the Report of the three-man Haider Panel on the Lingam Tape? One does not need to have any legal background or experience in Cabinet in charge of law affairs to decide what is right and proper to be done on a question of accountability, transparency and integrity, not only about the Lingam Tape revelations about the perversion of the course of justice on fixing of judicial appointments and judicial decisions but the urgent need for judicial reforms. Continue reading “LingamGate – Give Rais’ book “Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia” to all Cabinet Ministers”

The three-man Haidar Panel to determine the authenticity of the Lingam Tape has come out with a shock decision to submit three separate reports to the government.

This is the explanation given by the Panel Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor for this extraordinary turn of events: “In view of the time constraints, it would not be fair to load one member with the task of preparing the report. That is why we have decided to submit separate reports instead.”

Even a school-child can see that Haidar is not telling the truth, and that the real reason is that the three-man panel cannot reach agreement on its finding and recommendation.

As no witness had appeared before the Haidar Panel, which had only the report of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA to go by, what is the heavy task about preparing the report which Haidar is talking about? It must be the easiest report in the nation’s 50 year history for any inquiry committee to write, as there is very little to say — since all that is required of the Panel is to determine whether the Lingam Tape is authentic or not.

There are only three possible answers to the very narrow and restricted terms of reference of the Haidar Panel, that the Lingam Tape is authentic, not authentic or no way to establish either way.

If all the three members are agreed that the Lingam Tape agreed on anyone of these three answers, and that is all they want to say, then there is no need for three separate reports.

It is only when there is disagreement among the three members that there is need for three separate reports.

I can envisage the following scenarios to warrant the writing of three separate reports:

Scenario One — The three-man Panel divided into two camps, whether two-one or one-two, with one camp holding a position on these three variations different from that of another.

Scenario Two — The panel divided into two camps — one holding that although the Panel cannot determine whether the tape is authentic, the government should nonetheless, in view of overriding national interests, establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into it and the serious allegations of perversion of the course of justice on fixing of judicial appointments, particularly in view of the recent proceedings of the 14th Law Conference and the opening speech by the former Lord President and Perak Sultan Azlan Shah calling for return of the judiciary to its former golden days. The other camp objecting to such a recommendation. Continue reading “In the six mintues sequel of Lingam Tape, Lingam admitted he was talking to Fairuz”

With five days to go for the three-man Haidar Panel to complete its finding, the Panel will go down in the nation’s history as the most useless and impotent inquiry with the least to do and the least expected of it in view of its ridiculously narrow and restricted term of reference to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape with its explosive expose of the perversion of the course of justice with serious allegations of fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions.

With the retirement of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice without any extension, the powers-that-be may be minded to think that this is opportune time to lay to rest the controversy of the Lingam Tape which was released by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Sept. 18.

Two weeks ago, the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz appeared to be coaching the Haidar Panel on its finding when he said that it would be “unfortunate if the mechanism (Haidar Panel) set up is not used by the people” as “we may conclude there is no case”!

Is the Haidar Panel being coached by Nazri to come out with the finding that the Lingam Tape is a non-issue as no witness has come forward to vouch for its authenticity?

Although such a final finding by the Haidar Panel would come as no surprise, it would nonetheless be a scandal of the first magnitude for it is just outrageous that a panel to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape had no independent powers of investigations but must depend solely on the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) for its technical expertise and forensic finding.

When Osama bin Laden occasionally emerged from his hideout to issue dire warnings to the United States government in his videotapes, no one from the White House, FBI or CIA would take the position that unless Osama or some witness surface to vouch for their authenticity, or unless the original tape is produced, the tapes concerned would be regarded as fakes!

Why then are the Malaysian Cabinet Ministers and the various government agencies, including the Haidar Panel, taking such a ridiculous stand? Continue reading “Will the crisis of judiciary balloon into Abdullah’s first major crisis of confidence because of government attempt to bury the Lingam Tape scandal as a non-issue?”

It is a big sigh of relief all round that Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has indeed retired as Chief Justice and his application for the customary six-month extension had been rejected.

But why should it take a “shadow” constitutional crisis to effect something which is right and proper for the country?

It bespeaks of a constitution and system of justice which have gone seriously awry and should be put right without any more delay.

The following quotes from the 14th Law Conference are more than sufficient to demand bold and far-reaching reforms to restore public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary, viz:

“It is time for the judiciary to regain the public’s confidence and bring back the glory years.” — Sultan Azlan Shah

“The golden era of the judiciary was before 1988.
“Then came the watershed in 1988 and the system deteriorated so rapidly, so much so that I gratefully retired in 1995.” — former Court of Appeal judge Datuk V.C.George.

“What does the Constitution mean to me? It means nothing to me at the moment, because it can be changed at any time.” Raja Aziz Addruse, senior lawyer.

Continue reading “Fairuz CJ no more, but crisis of judiciary continues – appoint RCI to end Haidar Panel charade”