I want to believe that Malaysian judges are professional and qualified, and as such will not be affected by 'fear' or even opinions ventilated in the public arena or in the media. They will judge in accordance with the law, and in accordance to their conscience. There are matters where the law, be it written law, or precedence have not yet determined. A judge should be brave enough to express his own mind to create 'new law' where it so requires, and his reasoning must be just.
It is hence most disturbing when Attorney General Apandi Ali makes a suggestion that Malaysian judges may be affected by 'fear' or influenced by outside opinions wrongly.
He seems to be propagating the SUBJUDICE rule - Is he trying to say that Malaysians and others should not be commenting or discussing ongoing cases? Is he trying to say that 'our courtroom public gallery and premises' should be cleared of members of the public not party to the suit?
To another question on the need of sub judice rule as it raised a gap in journalism, Apandi said to avoid judges to be influenced, there was the need to maintain the sub judice rule.
"Judges are human, they are supposed to give decisions without fear or favour but when they are sitting (on the bench), he is confronted with so many supporters for example the accused person staring at him, I heard judges telling me, indicating to me that they feel the fear. The element of the fear factor is there.
"Judges are also human, they have the fear factor, so to avoid that, it is better to still maintain the sub judice principle," he said.
Apandi explained that judges might have not only been influenced by the writing, even the mere people present in the courtroom could also create fear in the judges.
Sub judice means the public are prohibited to discuss anywhere on any case which is still under judicial consideration.
I say that JUDGES who cannot uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour should really not be a Judge at all.
Judges, are not lay persons like in a Jury, but are professionals, and they will not and should not be influenced by 'external matters' or 'discussions' be it from the Prime Minister, the government, a religious authority, individuals - be it by reason of FEAR or any other reason, be it 'rewards', promise of rewards, etc...
JUDGES are humans - but in carrying out their duties, they must act FEARLESSLY in upholding the cause of justice. I have faith in Malaysian judges, and if there are judges who cannot fulfill their role and responsibilities...well, it is time for them to leave...we need a STRONG DEPENDABLE Judiciary.
Maybe, AG Apandi Ali should now identify these 'judges' who told him that they acted out of fear when giving their judgments - such Judges need to be removed. Feeling fear is human, but the question is whether they can overcome this fear and act justly as required by them...
AG Apandi, when did these judges tell you this - when you were still a Judge, or after you became the Attorney General? This also is material. Odd if judges are 'complaining' to the AG? Independence of the Judiciary means also independence from the AG, the PM or the Government?
Now, why is the AG commenting on this? Anyway, the AG does not determine the law in Malaysia - so, I take it this is only the opinion of one man.
JUDGES are the Judges of the Malaysian people - and not merely Judges of the government. Judges also must be conscious of their reality - our Malaysian reality and also the global reality, of differing sentiments, opinions and viewpoints...
Criticizing court judgments and/or even rulings - well, this is important for judges and also for the development of law. Remember, a judge decides not just on the basis of what has been submitted by the lawyers of the parties, but also based on his/her own personal understanding and knowledge. It is not uncommon to see good judgments of courts that are decided not just based on any points or authorities that were raised by lawyers of the parties in court, but based also on the personal knowledge of law of judges. Justice will not be done, if judges can only rely on what has been submitted - as then, justice may not be done by reason of lawyer's failings.
For Apandi, it seems that 'Sub judice means the public are prohibited to discuss anywhere on any case which is still under judicial consideration' - and, in my opinion, he is wrong. Subjudice may be relevant if we still have jury trials - but professional judges will and should not be influenced by 'public discussion anywhere on any cases which is under judicial consideration. The public can discuss as they will - but professional judges will not allow anything irrelevant to affect their judgment.
Well, hopefully the AG will also advice the Inspector General of Police and some of our Ministers - reminding them of the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. Many of them make comments as though persons arrested are guilty of an offence - when a person arrested is still only a 'suspect', and even a person charged in court is only a person who is accused of committing an offence. It is only when a person is convicted by court, will he be considered guilty of any crime.
Remember, that we are in a democracy - and here we place great importance of the Freedom of Expresion, Freedom of Opinion, Freedom of Assembly and Press Freedom...
In any event, this is only an opinion of AG Apandi, and like all of us, he has the freedom to express his opinion - and I have the right and freedom to disagree with his opinion..
Tuesday, 26 April 2016 | MYT 8:26 PM
A-G Apandi: I am enjoying the job
Apandi
KUALA LUMPUR: Despite facing various criticisms for the past eight
months he has been in office, Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi
Ali said he enjoyed his job and would take criticisms as a challenge.
Apandi said as long as his duties involved the law of which he had a passion for, he would always take them as challenges and he loved challenges.
He said the eight months that he had been in office was neither "terrible nor conducive", but he regarded them as trying and challenging.
"My interest is always there, I am enjoying the job and I take the critics in stride," he said when asked by Bernama chairman Datuk Seri Azman Ujang to describe his tenure as the Attorney-General during the question and answer session at a luncheon talk with editors and media practitioners at a hotel here.
Apandi said as long as his duties involved the law of which he had a passion for, he would always take them as challenges and he loved challenges.
He said the eight months that he had been in office was neither "terrible nor conducive", but he regarded them as trying and challenging.
"My interest is always there, I am enjoying the job and I take the critics in stride," he said when asked by Bernama chairman Datuk Seri Azman Ujang to describe his tenure as the Attorney-General during the question and answer session at a luncheon talk with editors and media practitioners at a hotel here.
Apandi was a former Federal Court judge before he was appointed
Attorney-General on July 27 last year replacing Tan Sri Abdul Gani
Patail, whose service was terminated due to health reasons.
To another question on the need of sub judice rule as it raised a gap in journalism, Apandi said to avoid judges to be influenced, there was the need to maintain the sub judice rule.
"Judges are human, they are supposed to give decisions without fear or favour but when they are sitting (on the bench), he is confronted with so many supporters for example the accused person staring at him, I heard judges telling me, indicating to me that they feel the fear. The element of the fear factor is there.
"Judges are also human, they have the fear factor, so to avoid that, it is better to still maintain the sub judice principle," he said.
Apandi explained that judges might have not only been influenced by the writing, even the mere people present in the courtroom could also create fear in the judges.
Sub judice means the public are prohibited to discuss anywhere on any case which is still under judicial consideration.
During the press conference, Apandi said the investigation papers (IPs) opened on former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has yet to be referred to him for further action.
"I have not seen the IPs yet. The police may have sent the papers to my officers, in the prosecution department.
"In the final analysis if they (prosecution) want to make any decision they have to refer to me, but they have yet to refer to me until now," he said when asked on the development of the case.
On April 16, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar had said that police were waiting for the Attorney-General's decision on four IPs opened on Dr Mahathir.
Questioned again on the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case, Apandi clarified that he had directed further investigation in respect of other personalities who might be involved in the matter.
"And I am yet to receive back the IPs pertaining to that directive, until now they have not come back," he said. - Bernama - Star, 26/4/2016
To another question on the need of sub judice rule as it raised a gap in journalism, Apandi said to avoid judges to be influenced, there was the need to maintain the sub judice rule.
"Judges are human, they are supposed to give decisions without fear or favour but when they are sitting (on the bench), he is confronted with so many supporters for example the accused person staring at him, I heard judges telling me, indicating to me that they feel the fear. The element of the fear factor is there.
"Judges are also human, they have the fear factor, so to avoid that, it is better to still maintain the sub judice principle," he said.
Apandi explained that judges might have not only been influenced by the writing, even the mere people present in the courtroom could also create fear in the judges.
Sub judice means the public are prohibited to discuss anywhere on any case which is still under judicial consideration.
During the press conference, Apandi said the investigation papers (IPs) opened on former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, has yet to be referred to him for further action.
"I have not seen the IPs yet. The police may have sent the papers to my officers, in the prosecution department.
"In the final analysis if they (prosecution) want to make any decision they have to refer to me, but they have yet to refer to me until now," he said when asked on the development of the case.
On April 16, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar had said that police were waiting for the Attorney-General's decision on four IPs opened on Dr Mahathir.
Questioned again on the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) case, Apandi clarified that he had directed further investigation in respect of other personalities who might be involved in the matter.
"And I am yet to receive back the IPs pertaining to that directive, until now they have not come back," he said. - Bernama - Star, 26/4/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment