`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Sunday, January 11, 2015

POSER TO CJ and AG: Why should judges be above criticism?

POSER TO CJ and AG: Why should judges be above criticism?
In the Altantuya case, the judiciary said that motive was not necessary for the killing and blowing up of the lady. In all other murder or manslaughter cases (even theft cases), motive is a vital factor in coming to a decision and meting out appropriate punishment. For example, if a penniless person has stolen a loaf of bread to feed his hunger, must he be sent to prison?
Did the judiciary respect the rule of law which requires that finding out why someone committed a crime (killing someone is a very serious crime) is vital in order to make a fair decision and impose appropriate punishment?
What was the motive of the judiciary in stating that “motive” was not necessary in this case?
Mariam Mokhtar described former Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (FMT 10-01-15) when she wrote:
“Last July, retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram described a case in 1996, which gives us an insight into Hamid’s character. The civil case involved a bank suing two business partners, a Malay and an Indian, both of whom were the guarantors for a loan. These men claimed that their signatures had been forged by a third party.
“Sri Ram said that Hamid’s written judgement, in Malay, accepted the Malay defendant’s claim that “a Muslim does not tell lies”; however, Hamid had rejected the Indian’s allegation, which then prompted both the bank and the Indian businessmen to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Sri Ram said, “The Court of Appeal dismissed the bank’s appeal, set aside Hamid’s judgment and ordered a retrial.”
“It appears that Hamid showed racial and religious bias even as a practising judge. Is it any wonder that people like Hamid disgrace the judiciary and make us lose confidence in this institution”?
In which law school did this judge learn that a plea of “a Muslim does not tell lies” is to be accepted as the truth and nothing but the truth? What message was he sending to those Muslims who may not be honest in their business dealings? Was this judicial professionalism, or is racial/religious favouritism allowed in making judgments?
What about the Chief Justice who was photographed holidaying with a lawyer? That was “correct, correct, correct”? Was he upholding the integrity and high ideals of the judiciary?
Has the judiciary forgotten the apex court’s decision in *Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Boonsom Boonyanit* which ruined the land owner and many other land owners? When this judgment of the Federal Court was reviewed by the same court 10 years later, the presiding judge, Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi said: “I am legally obligated to restate the law since the error committed in Adorna Properties is so obvious and blatant.”
Does this “obvious and blatant” error by the apex court not reflect on the judiciary and deserve criticism?
What about the young sportsman who committed statutory rape and was let off by the judiciary on the grounds that “he had a bright future” in sports and the court should not ruin it by sending him to prison?
Lawyers and the Bar Council should be able to add many more such “landmark” decisions of the judiciary to the list.
How do they reflect on the Judiciary? Why must people not criticize such judgments?
The present judiciary is not the same as it used to be before the sacking of Salleh Abbas. Or was that Judiciary not as good as the one after that?
Pray, tell us how to evaluate a judiciary and whose responsibility it is to do so, if not that of the end consumers of the service, i.e. the public?
Please give us a checklist that we can tick off in doing our evaluation. - FMT

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.