Don’t judge judiciary based on selected cases, says Raus

Judges take part in a procession during the Annual Judges Conference opening ceremony at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre today. Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif says it is untrue that the interests of the state trump those of citizens in court rulings. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Najjua Zulkefli, January 8, 2016.

The judiciary does not make popular decisions but is bound by the law when deciding on cases, Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said, disputing the Bar Council's claim that rulings in a number of cases gave the impression that the interest of the state prevailed over the constitutional rights of citizens.

Raus said one should not only look at selected cases but at cases on the whole.

"There are many cases that are decided against the government," he told reporters on the sidelines of the Annual Judges Conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

He also disagreed with Bar president Steven Thiru's statement that the willingness on the part of the courts to cede jurisdiction had been decried as an abdication of responsibility.

"There are cases where politicians like Hadi, Tian Chua and Tony Pua all won before the appellate court.

"So there is a need to look at all the cases in order to make a comparison," Raus said, referring to PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, PKR vice-president Chua Tian Chang and DAP publicity chief Tony Pua.

Steven in his speech at the opening of the 2016 Legal Year this morning said there had been much public disquiet over a number of cases decided by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court last year.

He cited the cases of Zi Publications Sdn Bhd (Ezra Zaid case), law professor Azmi Sharom, the Negri Sembilan transgender case, and most recently, the case involving kindergarten teacher M. Indira Gandhi and the conversion of her children by her Muslim convert husband.

Steven said these cases concerned constitutional rights of speech, expression, assembly and religion, as well as equality and the right to life.

"The decisions in these cases have far-reaching implications on fundamental rights and minority rights under our Federal Constitution.

"The seemingly expansive interpretation of restrictions to fundamental liberties has not been well received.

"The apparent reluctance of the court to invalidate legislation or state enactments on constitutional grounds is worrying, and has given rise to the public perception that the interest of the state prevails over the constitutional rights of citizens," Steven said.

- TMI