The Malaysian Bar and its member lawyers have repeatedly proven their commitment to upholding the cause of justice, without fear or favor. They do not just issue statements - but on important issues will take to the street to exercise their right to peaceful. The 'Walk for Justice' in 2007 saw the participation of about 2,000 lawyers. Subsequent big protests for the abolition of Sedition Act, and for the right to peaceful assembly saw the participation of large number of lawyers around 1,500 - 2,000.
The Resolution reaffirms the principle of equality - Judges are not above the law, and ought to be investigated by the relevant law enforcement agencies > but what was criticized was the Malaysian Bar condemned was ' condemn,
in the strongest possible terms, the unprecedented manner in which the
Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) has publicly announced the
commencement of criminal investigation of a Superior Court Judge, and
disclosed the name of the judge to the public, for an indefinite period
and without proper closure, which is tantamount to an act of
intimidation against the Judiciary'
The WALK that will be held is not just about this issue, and may include other matters - '... advocate legislative reform to protect the independence of the
Judiciary from interference by the Executive and to uphold public
confidence in the Judiciary;..'
Resolution Adopted at the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar
(27 May 2022)
Resolution on Upholding and Protecting the Independence of the Judiciary and the Preservation of Public Confidence in the Judiciary
(1) Whereas judicial power and judicial independence are fundamental and sacrosanct to the principle of separation of powers that stands as one of the basic structures enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
(2) Whereas public confidence in the Judiciary is the hallmark of a mature and effective democratic government under the Federal Constitution.
(3) Whereas the Malaysian Bar has consistently defended the independence of the Judiciary and public confidence in the Judiciary as part of its statutory obligation to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its Members, uninfluenced by fear or favour, under section 42(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
(4) Whereas on 20 April 2022, Raja Petra Kamarudin (“RPK”) published an article entitled “Judge Mohd Nazlan Being Investigated For Unexplained RM1 Million In His Bank Account” on a website known as Malaysia Today.
(5) Whereas on 23 April 2022, the Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”), Tan Sri Azam Baki, openly announced that the MACC has commenced an investigation into a Court of Appeal Judge, and named Justice Dato’ Mohd Nazlan bin Mohd Ghazali (“Justice Dato’ Nazlan”) publicly, over an allegation of unexplained monies in his bank account.
(6) Whereas on 25 April 2022, the President of the Malaysian Bar issued a press release entitled “The Malaysian Bar Stands With and Supports Malaysian Judges Who Are Independent and With Integrity — Respect and Uphold the Integrity of the Judiciary as an Integral Institution in the Administration of Justice”.
1 “Judge Mohd Nazlan Being Investigated For Unexplained RM1 Million In His Bank Account”, Malaysia Today, 19 April 2022. A copy of this article is found in Annexure A to this motion.
2 “MACC: Nazlan under probe”, The Star, 23 April 2022. A copy of this article is found in Annexure B to this motion.
3 “Press Release | The Malaysian Bar Stands With and Supports Malaysian Judges Who Are Independent and With Integrity — Respect and Uphold the Integrity of the Judiciary as an Integral Institution in the Administration of Justice”, Malaysian Bar, 24 April 2022. A copy of the press release is found in Annexure C to this motion.
(7) Whereas on 28 April 2022, the MACC issued a press release entitled “The MACC Is Empowered to Investigate Officers of Public Body”, taking the position that it can investigate Justice Dato’ Nazlan based on section 3 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (“MACC Act”).4
(8) Recognising that Judges of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Federal Court (“Superior Court Judges”) are not above the law and must be made accountable for crimes they commit, and that law enforcement agencies must be allowed to carry out their respective tasks in accordance with the law and the Federal Constitution.
(9) Recognising that any investigation of Superior Court Judges by law enforcement agencies must be done in a manner that does not erode judicial independence, and public confidence in the Judiciary and its independence.
(10) Recognising that any complaint against Superior Court Judges and its investigation by law enforcement agencies under the purview of the Executive, if given undue and unwarranted publicity, will have a far-reaching impact on Superior Court Judges and the independence of the Judiciary, and the public confidence reposited in the Judiciary.
(11) Recognising that the Judiciary as an institution, and the Superior Court Judges carrying out their judicial duties, must be protected from intimidation, harassment and frivolous investigation, particularly in cases that go against the Executive, considering that the Executive forms a large category of litigants in a position to misuse its powers against Superior Court Judges.
(12) Recognising that the undue and unwarranted manner in which the MACC publicly announced an investigation and named the judge, has the effect of undermining public confidence in the Judiciary, and is clearly an attack on the independence of the Judiciary.
(13) Recognising that the Judiciary cannot step into the public arena to defend itself.
(14) Recognising that the Malaysian Bar plays a crucial and complementary role to the Judiciary in the administration of justice and must support the independence of the Judiciary, which is essential to our democratic system, rule of law, our legal profession, and the nation.
It is hereby resolved that:
(1) The Malaysian Bar condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the unprecedented manner in which the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (“MACC”) has publicly announced the commencement of criminal investigation of a Superior Court Judge, and disclosed the name of the judge to the public, for an indefinite period and without proper closure, which is tantamount to an act of intimidation against the Judiciary;
(2) The Malaysian Bar condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any interference at any time with the independence of the Judiciary, and breaches of the fundamental principle of separation of powers;
(3) The Malaysian Bar shall take immediate and necessary steps to organise and lead a peaceful protest at a time and venue as the Bar Council deems suitable, and such other steps as deemed appropriate by the Bar Council in its discretion, which may include to challenge the propriety and manner of the investigation commenced by the MACC of Justice Dato’ Nazlan, as stated in the preamble to this resolution, and/or to advocate legislative reform to protect the independence of the Judiciary from interference by the Executive and to uphold public confidence in the Judiciary; and
(4) The Malaysian Bar call upon the Attorney General, being the guardian of the public interest, to take all necessary steps to protect the institution of the Judiciary and the sacrosanct principle of independence of Judiciary from such intimidation and interference.
4 “Press Statement | The MACC Is Empowered to Investigate Officers of Public Body”, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, 28 April 2022. A copy of the press statement is found in Annexure D to this motion.
No comments:
Post a Comment