Disquiet over the Judicial Front
It was only a week ago when the de facto Law Minister told reporters that neither the proposal to amend the Federal Constitution to set up the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) nor that to reinstate Article 121 to its pre-1988 position will be tabled in Parliament next week.
Yesterday Azmi Sharom, in his column Brave New World in The Star, asked, “Is the Government serious or not?” He wrote:
As it is, it all seems to be in limbo. Just what is it about the proposal that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet dislike? Is it the fact that one man does not hold all the power anymore? Could it be the idea that the loss of the ability to twist the judiciary around the fingers of the Executive is so shocking that it can’t be endured?
Frankly, I think that is the only reason for this plan to be “put on hold”. The Government wants to control the Judiciary. It doesn’t want an independent bench. It doesn’t want the citizens of this country to enjoy the security of a competent court whose powers are separate and safe from the political machinations of the Executive and the Legislature.
If a JAC made up of reputable “primary stakeholders” and not toadying civil servants and politicians, is not established, and if Article 121 is not returned to its original form, then whatever shred of credibility this government may have will be destroyed.
The Cabinet will have to decide. Does it want to “renew the public’s trust in the nation’s Judiciary,” or is its hunger for dominance and total control over the three branches of government so ravenous that it can’t see beyond the short term?
Does the Cabinet not realise that by taking away from the people what is rightfully theirs, it is merely digging its own grave?
Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, the President of the Malaysian Bar also released a press statement yesterday entitled, “The Judicial Appointments Commission: Hopes Dashed?” In it she wrote:
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 (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission), 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.
Clearly there is real concern that this matter will be put in limbo. In last week’s meeting with reporters, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim was asked if the Prime Minister remains committed to the reforms. His reply was revealing:
“I believe so. But you have to ask him. I cannot speak for the Prime Minister.”
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2008%2F6%2F21%2Fnation%2F21614657&sec=nation
The reinstatement of Article 121 of the Constitution to it’s original wording is vital. As Azmi Shahrom wrote:
Article 121, for those of you who have never slept through a Constitutional Law lecture, is about judicial power. It used to be that the Judiciary determined its own jurisdiction, i.e. what cases it could, and could not, hear.
Article 121 was amended in 1988 to give that power to Parliament. So now Parliament has the power to tell the Judiciary what sort of cases it can judge. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the separation of powers.
This, together with the formation of the Judicial Appointments Commission, will go some distance in restoring the balance of power in the country and allow the Judiciary the independence it needs to dispense justice without fear or favour. The IPCMC, recommended and drafted by a Royal Commission in 2005, which will be an independent commission to investigate complaints of police misconduct, is another vital piece of legislature. This too is currently in limbo.
We need to remain vigilant in prayer, that the country will go forward to implement the necessary reforms to restore the confidence of the people in the country and its administration, and not fall prey to the agenda of the powerful.
Related article: Justice and the Law
Comments
Comments are subject to moderation.
There are currently no comments.