Category: Judiciary

The three-man Haidar Inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape yesterday asked the person who recorded it and others who have relevant information to come forward “for the sake of Malaysia”.

Panel member and former Court of Appeal judge said: “Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? There may have been others who were there (during the incident). Have they got the responsibility?

“If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

It is the three panel members Tan Sri Haidar Mohamad Noor, Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye who should set the example of acting “For the sake of Malaysia” by returning their letters of appointment to the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to ask for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, the allegations of the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court judgments as well as into the 19-year rot in the judiciary.

With the declaration of five “No”s — no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no immunity under the law and no power to protect witnesses, the Haidar panel is swiftly degenerating from a farce into a joke.

It is balderdash to plead “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” or to trot out philosophical arguments about “the power of the powerless” as counterpoint to the absence of protection for witnesses who appear before the panel.

If all the judges at all levels of the judiciary in the past 19 years had been guided by the noble objective “For the sake of Malaysia” and the principle that “the truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection”, the system of justice and national and international credibility in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary would not have plunged to such a sorry state with one judicial crisis after another in the past 19 years.

What happened to a courageous judge, Justice Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah who in 1996 tried the blow the whistle in his 33-page anonymous letter containing 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges? Continue reading “Lingam Tape – Haidar, Mahadev, Lam Thye should return inquiry panel appointment letters to Najib “for the sake of Malaysia””

I will move a substantive motion of no confidence in Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice when Parliament reconvenes on Oct. 22 if the Prime Minister and Cabinet evade their national duty tomorrow to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of Malaysian judiciary and establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The urgency of such a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the independence and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary has been highlighted by the current controversy and public furore over the Lingam Tape scandal re-opening one of the most disgraceful subjects in Malaysia — the 19-year crisis of confidence in the Malaysian judiciary with the system of justice tottering from one scandal after another in the past two decades since 1988.

Public opinion have spoken out loud and clear that Malaysia must not miss the golden opportunity which has surfaced to rectify one of the greatest national shames and injustices in five decades of Malaysian nationhood — the plunge in national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary in the past 19 years from the high world esteem and respect it had enjoyed during the first three decades of Malaysian history, especially under the first three Prime Ministership of Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

The Cabinet tomorrow must not abdicate from its national duty to do what is right for the country and future generations — to make Malaysians proud of the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice once again after 19 years by disbanding the three-man panel on the authenticity of Lingam Tape and its replacement by a Royal Commission of Inquiry with wide-ranging powers to inquire into the rot in the justice system to restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian judiciary.

On Sunday, three illustrious former members of the Bench had added their voices to the snowballing demand for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the system of justice as well as for a Judicial Appointment Commission.

The three retired judges — rightly described by Sunday Star as “among the most highly-respected to have served on the Bench – who have spoken up are retired Court of Appeal judges, Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail, Datuk K.C. Vohrah and Datuk V.C. George.

Shaik Daud made a most powerful argument for a Judicial Appointments Commission when he pointed out the blemishes of recent judicial appointments: “We have seen so many cases where seniors (judges) with merit are not promoted but juniors without merit are. The reason would appear to be that they are being rewarded.”

On the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry instead of just a panel to look into the authenticity of Lingam Tape, George said: “The panel is only looking at one issue. I think the Bar is on the right track in calling for a royal commission to look into all aspects of the judiciary” while Vohrah said: “Yes. A royal commission could explore all aspects of the ills besetting the judiciary. The problems are far-reaching and something has to be done fairly quickly before the judiciary slides further down the track.”

On Nazri’s claim that everything was all right with the judiciary, Vohrah had this unflattering comment:

“I think he’s probably not aware of what is happening on the ground. In many commercial contracts, parties are including an arbitration clause to resolve disputes instead of the courts. That is a terrible blow to the judiciary because apart from a handful, the rest are good judges. In some states, there may be three or four judges but you will find that only one or two are doing all the work and carrying the whole burden.”

If the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Cabinet are not prepared to do their national duty to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow by establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry, then there is probably no other option than to explore the next logical move in Parliament — a substantive motion of no confidence in Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice. Continue reading “Lingam tape – substantive no confidence motion in Ahmad Fairuz as CJ”

The 50th Merdeka anniversary should be a celebration of the success of Malaysian nation-building after 50 years. Unfortunately, Malaysians are being given proof of of many things that have gone wrong with the nation — whether national unity, civil service efficiency, independence of the judiciary, the police, crime, anti-corruption, education, economic development and quality of education.

I will just give one instance of Malaysian nation-building which has gone wrong highlighted on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary.

In the 2008 Budget presentation, the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that as part of the effort to inculcate corporate social responsibility (CSR), all public-listed companies will be required from the financial year 2008 to disclose their employment composition by race and gender.

But has the government set a good example of responsibility with regard to ensuring a civil service which reflects the multi-racial composition of the country? Continue reading “No Malaysian Chinese as Federal Court judge – first time in 50 years”

Malaysia is still reeling from the many shocks reverberating from the expose of the Lingam Tape — confirming what had been widely talked about concerning the perversion of the course of justice in the fixing of judicial appointments and court judgments but also from the responses from the Executive and Judiciary.

Both the Executive and the Judiciary had come out of the Lingam Tape scandal with their reputation in tatters.

The thunderous ten-day silence of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has completely drowned out the puny denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on the Chief Justice’s behalf.

In the 50-year history of the nation, one top judicial officer had been sacked from his office but he retained national and international respect for his honour and integrity. However, two other top judicial officers who completed their term of office did so under a black cloud and nobody would have thought there would be a third top judicial officer who would be exiting from office in ignominy.

The Executive on its part had brought the whole system of democratic governance into a tragic-comedy of errors — not least of which was the decision to set up a so-called “Independent Panel” to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape and headed by someone who is tainted by his role in the “mother” of all judicial crisis in the past 19 years, the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

Even now, the term of reference of the so-called “Independent Panel” into the Lingam Tape has not been fully made public. What is there so secretive that its actual term of reference is still being kept a secret?

But it is Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of law and justice, who has wrought the greatest harm to the system of governance in Malaysia. Continue reading “How did Nazri (Protocol No. 16) become Minister for Ahmad Fairuz, when CJ is No. 11 on protocol list?”

“Unbecoming, irregular and improper” are three adjectives which best characterize government and Independent Panel responses in the latest developments on the Lingam Tape scandal.

It was the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who was doubly “unbecoming” in launching a tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their historic march for justice yesterday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya despite unwarranted police obstructions and in dismissing the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointment Commission.

Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

What makes Nazri think it is beneath the station of lawyers to be involved in a march for justice?

The 2,000 lawyers and supporters of the cause of justice have done themselves and the nation and the 50th Merdeka anniversary proud in the March for Justice in Putrajaya yesterday, in the true tradition of the great marches in the struggle of humanity for justice and freedom, like Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 to help free India from British colonial rule and Martin Luther King’s March on Washington for Freedom in 1963 which culminated in his electrifying speech “I Have A Dream”.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King are now recognized by history and mankind for their great marches while their detractors, the Nazris of their era, have been forgotten!

It is also most unbecoming of Nazri to arrogate to himself the powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss offhand the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointments Commission or has Nazri been authorized to usurp the powers of the Prime Minister? Continue reading “Lingam Tape – “Unbecoming, irregular, improper” characterise latest developments”

Former Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, should decline or withdraw as Chairman of the three-man panel on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape in view of his controversial role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis to allow for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be formed to conduct full and comprehensive inquiries into the erosion and ravages of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary since 1988.

I also call on the other two members earmarked for the Lingam Tape panel, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye to similarly decline or withdraw from the panel to send a clear and unmistakable message on behalf of all Malaysians and future generations — that the time has come not only for an untrammelled inquiry into the Lingam Tape with all its far-reaching and horrendous implications about perversion of the course of justice but the opportunity must not be missed to right the historic and generational wrongs in the past 19 years which saw Malaysia stumbling from one judicial crisis to another.

The question which Malaysiakini editor-in-chief, Steven Gan, asked in his editorial yesterday, “Will we miss the boat again”, must be asked by all Malaysians, including Shanker and Lam Thye.

Steven cannot be more right when he wrote:

“Almost a generation has suffered because of our ‘tidak apa’ attitude to the judicial crisis. Here’s another chance for us to make amends.

“We have missed the boat – not once but twice. Indeed, for the sake of the country, we cannot afford to blow this one chance.”

The establishment of an “Independent Panel” into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the rot in the system of justice in the past two decades and which had been highlighted by the Lingam Tape is the height of irresponsibility in trying to reduce the shocking scandal into a joke and a farce. Continue reading “Lingam Tape – Haidar, Shanker and Lam Thye should decline or withdraw from “Independent Panel””

Disbelief, shock and outrage — these three feelings sum up the general reaction to news of the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak of the three-man independent panel set up by the government to investigate the authenticity of the Lingam Tape of a telephone conversation between a senior lawyer V.K. Lingam and Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 on fixing of judicial appointments and perversion of the course of justice.

Najib said the panel would be headed by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, with former Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar and social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye as members.

The three-man independent panel into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape is unsatisfactory and unacceptable as it falls far short of what should be done — a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the alleged perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, integrity, impartiality and integrity.

The establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation is particularly urgent and imperative to restore public confidence in the system of justice as up to now, Ahmad Fairuz has been conspicuously silent in failing to personally issue a statement on the Lingam Tape — five days after its expose by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on Ahmad Fairuz’ behalf is just not good enough, with zero credibility.

In restricting the panel to the question of the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of allowing full investigations into all aspects of the allegations of perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity raised by the video clip, the government is avoiding the imperative issue of the long-standing rot in the judiciary and the urgent need to restore national and international confidence in the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law. Continue reading “Lingam Tape – 3-man panel into authenticity unsatisfactory, unacceptable and falls far short of what should be done”

Cry for the judiciary — for the first time in 50 years, there is a Minister for the Chief Justice when seven years ago, the then Chief Justice declared that there was no Minister looking after the judiciary and ridiculed the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the law and justice portfolio as Minister for “tables and chairs” for the courts!

Yesterday, when trying to explain why he had issued a denial on behalf of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in connection with the Lingam Tape, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz said that this was because “I am his minister”.

He said: “I am his minister. I am the minister in charge of legal affairs. He is clever enough to know that the reporters will ask me for a response.”

In one fell swoop, Nazri had not only reduced the Chief Justice to that of a subordinate junior but also repudiated the cardinal principle of the independence of the Judiciary and destroyed the fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

In the five decades of nationhood, the Minister delegated the law and justice portfolio by the Prime Minister was never regarded as a Minister for the judges because of the doctrine of separation of powers of the three branches of government and the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

In June 2000, Malaysians were offered a glimpse of judicial goings-on when the contretemps between the then Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Eusoffe Chin and the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim erupted after the latter chastised the former for his improper judicial behaviour in “socialising” with lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam during a New Zealand holiday in 1994.

Eusoffe said he coincidentally “bumped” into Lingam when holidaying in New Zealand, and relegated Rais to a Minister for “tables and chairs” for the Chief Registrar’s Office and not law.

Eusuff said: “I suppose when we need tables and chairs or a new courtroom, we go to him.” He stressed that the minister “doesn’t look after the judiciary”. (Star 7.6.00). Continue reading “Lingam Tape: Cry for judiciary – from Minister for “tables and chairs” to Minister for Chief Justice”

Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has allegedly denied that he was the person that senior lawyer V.K. Lingam was talking to in the now infamous 8-minute Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments, court judgment and getting a Tan Sri award.

I chose the term “allegedly denied” as there is no proof that Ahmad Fairuz had actually denied that he was the person Lingam was talking to in the Lingam Tape, especially as some 24 hours earlier Ahmad Fairuz had in “black-and-white” through his special assistant Arleen Ramly written to Malaysiakini to give a two-paragraph “No comment” response to its earlier fax inquiry.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz claimed that Ahmad Fairuz had called him to deny that he was the one talking to Lingam.

Nazri’s claim is full of holes.

Firstly, how is Nazri sure that it was Ahmad Fairuz who had spoken to him by phone and not an impersonator. Has Nazri got proof that Ahmad Fairuz had denied?

Secondly, why did Ahmad Fairuz make such a denial when 24 hours earlier he had directed his special assistant Arleen Ramly to fax a two paragraph “No comment” letter on the Chief Justice’s letterhead to Malaysiakini?

Thirdly, isn’t Ahmad Fairuz capable of issuing such a denial himself and isn’t he aware of the doctrine of Separation of Powers among the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary by conducting himself in such an improper and subservient manner, subordinating the Judiciary to the Executive?

Fourthly, why didn’t Ahmad Fairuz issue the denial in the first 72 hours of the expose of the Lingam Tape by Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday, especially as he had met the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi both on Wednesday and Thursday night, seated at the same table, at the Istana and the Chief Secretary to the Government’s fast-breaking functions respectively?

Fifthly, what was the purpose of the photographs of Ahmad Fairuz and the Prime Minister seated at the same table on both consecutive nights prominently published in the New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia?

Is it to send the message that Ahmad Fairuz has the full backing of the Prime Minister, regardless of the nation-wide outcry and outrage over the Lingam Tape?

Sixthly, what is the credibility of Ahmad Fairuz’ alleged denial through Nazri? Is its believability as abysmal as Ahmad Fairuz’ earlier alleged denial through Nazri of his proposal to abolish English common law and replacement by Islamic law – which is zero? Continue reading “Lingam Tape – credibility of Fairuz’s denial through Nazri zero like earlier case on abolition of common law”