Another mayday for justice

I THOUGHT I would never hear of another attack on the independence of the Malaysian judiciary, but I was wrong.

In 1988, the Lord President of the Supreme Court of Malaysia, Tun Salleh Abas, was at loggerheads with the ruling politicians.

It was a sad day for the judiciary, and for me, it was particularly upsetting because my friend, Justice Datuk Seri George Seah Kim Seng, was also a victim of political intrigue.

His career in the judiciary was cut short.

George was very kind to me whenever I was in Sibu for the Divisional Youth Council meetings.

He allowed me to read law books in his office at Wong Nai Siong Road, opposite the coffee shop that was open around the clock. This was Sibu in those good old days.

Sorry for the digression.

To Kuala Lumpur now and to the controversies over the decisions of the courts in two cases: the addendum, and the 1MDB.

For his decision on re: addendum, the judge was blamed by the supporters of a political party in government.

They reckoned that the judgement should have been in favour of Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, their ‘Bossku’, who had petitioned the Pardons Board for a house arrest.

After all, they are the supporters of a party forming the government in a coalition and Najib was then the prime minister of the country.

Their wishes should have been respected as a matter of course. They were utterly disappointed.

My comment on this issue is influenced by the event that happened almost 40 years ago.

Their party was in power then, and it is still in power.

Then, the deployment of political pressure applied against the judges was a great success.

However, this time around, the younger party leaders met with a problem – the judges in the addendum case and the 1MDB, respectively, were doing their jobs without fear or favour.

The Umno leaders in the government were expected to exert influence on the other leaders of the parties in coalition in terms of support for a house arrest.

Instead, the judge dismissed the royal decision as invalid.

To say that this verdict angered Najib’s supporters is an understatement.

There are talks among the Umno members of leaving the government as a protest against the party’s lack of vigour in championing the common cause.

The government of the day is in a dilemma: to quit, or not to quit.

To quit would result in the possible collapse of that government and the consequential loss of political clout by many leaders in government.

‘Be realistic’, argue some party leaders who have more to lose than to gain. A dilemma of sorts.

I say the blame on the judiciary by a political party which is part of the government, any government, and campaigning for a royal pardon, is not a sound strategy.

I am of the opinion that a viable move would be to canvas for support of the government to initiate a motion in Parliament by means of Bill to amend the Federal Constitution.

Subject to correction, Parliament may give the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong the power and the authority to pardon a prisoner at His Majesty’s absolute discretion or upon the consensus of the Conference of Rulers.

Take my idea for what it’s worth. I just want to be useful, that is all.

I do not believe for a moment that the supporters of Najib are ignorant of the fact that His Majesty Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is not an absolute monarch; he is a constitutional ruler exercising powers and authority within the confines of the Federal Constitution.

As it is, the Agong’s power to pardon is not discretionary. This is because there already exists the Pardons Board; any addendum that is not recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Pardons Board and being one of the decisions of the Pardons Board, is a suspect.

Not valid, as the judge has decided.

The decision as to whether or not it is necessary to go back to the feudal days is the prerogative of the legislators and the political party in power.

They may make the proposal to amend the constitution as an election platform, and obtain a mandate from the voters for this at the next election.

I will vote for the candidate using this as a platform.

To openly blame the judges for their respective judgement is an assault on the judiciary itself, undermining its impartiality and the force of the rule of law.

The blame does not benefit anybody at all.

There are other venues where you may disagree with a judge: in a courtroom, where you may argue your case until you are blue in the face, not in the social media or during a press conference.

Those places are the courts of public opinion, which sway listeners because of the fiery oratory, but the court of law matters more than laughter at the jokes.

The legal system that we have is still functional, despite the effort to weaken it.

The right of appeal is still there.

Use these venues to the full.

I heard that there is already an appeal filed in the addendum case.

Good – let the law take its course. Accept the result whatever it will be, and move on.

I do not believe for a moment that many supporters of Najib are ignorant of the fact that the legal system used by the Federated and Non-Federated Malay States and the Straits Settlements was accepted by the founders of the Malayan Federation.

In terms of the powers of the Malay rulers, the main source of law is the Federal Constitution and the respective state constitutions.

It may be appropriate to end this article with a big ‘Thank you’ to all my readers and critics for abiding with this column.

If I have not been up to their expectations on this field, I am sorry.

I like writing, and I am doing my best.

Their constant support and feedback will help to keep me going, rain or shine.

Good bye 2025, and welcome 2026!