PRESS RELEASE
The Judicial Appointments Commission: Hopes Dashed?
On 17 April 2008, the Prime Minister received a standing ovation from hundreds of lawyers after he made two long-awaited announcements, namely, that the Judges who were dismissed or suspended in the 1988 crisis would be compensated and that the Government would set up a Judicial Appointments Commission.
The first issue of the 1988 crisis appears to have been resolved between the Government and the individual Judges concerned. What remains outstanding on this is the legal review into the 1988 crisis which has been undertaken by a panel appointed by Lawasia, International Bar Association, Transparency International and the Malaysian Bar, and which should release its findings in the near future.
The first meaningful step towards Judicial Reform has thus taken place.
However, the second and vital step of the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission has stalled. The Bar fails to understand why. There was an expectation that only the “nuts and bolts” of the Judicial Appointments Commission remained to be worked out. After all, the other principal stakeholders, that is, the Attorney General and the Judiciary, had welcomed the Prime Minister’s announcement on the setting up of a Judicial Appointments Commission. Even the Royal Commission into the “Lingam Tape” recommended that such a commission be set up.
We therefore assumed that in principle, everyone agreed on the obvious need for a Judicial Appointments Commission.
But is that the case?
Are all the stakeholders in the Administration of Justice ad idem (like-minded) on this issue? Are they all committed to the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission or is there some reluctance somewhere? It was reported that some members of cabinet need persuasion about the Judicial Appointments Commission.
Who are these members?
More importantly, what are their objections?
It is only if all parties make their concerns known either to each other or publicly, that they can be addressed and debated. Everyone is entitled to their views but openly discussing and debating them will allow for a well thought through model to emerge. The concern is that there may be stumbling blocks simply because there are those who do not want the Judicial Appointments Commission to see the light of day.
The public is entitled to know who is objecting to the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission and why.
The Malaysian Bar has a genuine fear that the Judicial Appointments Commission will share the same fate as that of the IPCMC, which has also stalled. We understand that much discussion of these views goes on “behind the scenes”. Perhaps it is time to have open discussions of such matters of national interest so that those who lobby for a particular point of view are made accountable for that point of view.
A definite timetable must be set by the Government to show its commitment to the Judicial Appointments Commission and its resolve in seeing it through.
The Malaysian Bar has made known its views. Our proposal for the Judicial Appointments Commission is available on our website. We are prepared to discuss our views publicly, hear other views, and arrive at a solution that serves the interests of the nation.
We trust that the promise and hope that moved us to rise to our feet on 17 April will not be dashed against the rocks. If so, it will be a colossal loss, not just to us but also to the nation.
It is disheartening, isn't it?
The personal interest of some cabinet members will be greatly affected by the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission, it has to be.
I am wondering, how now, our Prime Minister is going to explain this? After all, he has made public his "commitment" on the issue. Or, is he going to practice his usual elegant silence, hoping that this issue will die off one day?
Yes, people's memories are short!
The personal interest of some cabinet members will be greatly affected by the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Commission, it has to be.
I am wondering, how now, our Prime Minister is going to explain this? After all, he has made public his "commitment" on the issue. Or, is he going to practice his usual elegant silence, hoping that this issue will die off one day?
Yes, people's memories are short!
