Justice Raus, a good judge favours nobody but the law

YOURSAY | ‘Justice is blind and it should not matter who the litigants are, whether opposition or gov’t.’

We rule in favour of opposition too, judge reminds Bar

Anonymous #45527285: The statement by Appellate Court president Mohd Raus Syarif is outrageous.

The statement implies that since there were some cases where the decision was in favour of the opposition, therefore the courts have to give certain concessions to the government too. That is pathetic.

Justice is supposed to be blind and it should not matter who the litigants are, whether the opposition or the government. The court has to decide purely on the basis of law and the constitution, and not apportioning the winnings based on political leanings.

Such statements have far reaching implications on the independence of the judiciary.

Ipohcrite: Indeed, the issue is not whether you ruled against the government or the opposition.

It is when you ruled so blatantly in favour of the government on important legal issues that experienced law practitioners and first-year law students alike could not reasonably accept the grounds of judgment, that the rot in the judiciary and the lack of scrotal gumption of the bench is clear to all and sundry.

Res Ipsa: Justice Mohd Raus, you certainly can't be saying that for every five or 10 cases decided for the government, one or two has been decided in favour of the opposition. Is there anything taught in law school to make such distinctions?

Certainly not, as such extra-legal tendencies have been acquired or moulded during your tenure on the Bench where decisions in mega cases favouring the government almost always come packaged with promotions and other benefits.

For those who stand their ground on legal principles, they are either transferred or frozen in their positions. This is the sad state of our judiciary at present.

A classic case would be Mohd Hishamuddin Yunus, who recently retired as a judge of the Court of Appeal.

He was swarmed by Special Branch (SB) officers the moment he ruled on the illegal detention of N Gobalakrishnan under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

He admitted the fear that he went through for deciding against the government. So are you, Mohd Raus, now preaching to Malaysians about impartiality.

MA: The Appellate Court president should keep his gap shut; or else the people will label him another Ahmad Maslan.

What we care about is that every judgment should be constitutionally done right and carried out without fear or favour.

Awang Top: Mohd Raus is barking up the wrong tree. We want you to administer justice fairly to all. It has nothing to do with whether you support government or opposition. Just do your job honestly and with clear conscience.

Aziz Kader: A good judge only favours the law. If judges talk about making decisions in favour of government or opposition, it confirms that there are judgments which have gone beyond the law.

Hang Babeuf: "We decide according to the law as we understand it. Of course, they may not be happy but somebody has to decide," said Mohd Raus.

And that, precisely, is the problem. They decide upon the law "as they understand it". And their understanding is generally none too good. And the "normal", prevailing judicial appointment and promotion procedures are designed to produce exactly that effect.

Judges often decide key issues not according to legality, legal rationality and compassion. Instead, their judicial thinking is shaped by arbitrary convenience, "prudent" deference to anticipated political requirements, and crass heartlessness (often allied with sheer mindless, craven, subservient stupidity).

A fine state of affairs! The basis of a great legal culture! But no basis for hope or confidence that justice will be done, impartially.

Some crumbs are thrown from the table of the unduly overfed to the starving. This, he suggests, proves that there is no hunger in the land, and no bias in the distribution of bread and the requirements for survival.

What a stupid argument he offers. No wonder his judgments are so often awful, pathetically inadequate, embarrassing. Little can be expected. Expectations are seldom exceeded in this case.

Kerana Benar: Judges should not and must not be seen as playing politics. Therefore, judges should not and must not make comments with political connotations lest they will be accused playing fiddle to their master, Umno.

Mohd Raus should have said that all judgments are made on the basis of evidence and law. It looks like he is feeling the heat with regards to the comments made by the Bar Council, otherwise he would not have responded in that manner.

Hplooi: It looks like they just don't get it. It is not about whether the judgment favours opposition or government. It is about the rule of law based on natural justice.

These include precedence, beyond a reasonable doubt, right of response, supremacy of the civil courts over the syariah, etc.

Judges who opted not to defend the law as we know it deserves our deepest opprobrium.

Prudent: This is indeed a stupid and unbecoming statement from Raus. Justice demands that you do not favour anyone.

Just favour justice in accordance with the laws of the land - not just the letter of the law but the principles of justice underlying those laws.

The issue here is the perceived distortion of justice and not following the constitution when delivering judgments. If you do this, it does not matter how often you 'favour' the government or the opposition.

Not Convinced: It’s a sad reflection of our judiciary when Malaysiakini readers, many of whom have only a rudimentary knowledge of the law, are telling a top judge how best to do his job. -Mkini