Yoursay: Judge in Najib case shouldn't wait to be removed

YOURSAY | ‘We expect a certain minimal degree of responsibility and integrity from our judiciary.’

Najib to get a new judge to hear his CBT case?

Sirach: High Court judge Sophian Abdul Razak should have disclosed his Pahang Umno connection at the outset and recused himself from the case concerning former prime minister Najib Razak.

For him to be removed from the case ostensibly because of this revelation reflects poorly on the judiciary. It looks like the vestiges of the Najib era will take some time to be purged.

Anonymous_1371465729: A judge not only has to be impartial, but also seen to be impartial. Justice Sophian cannot be unaware of this tenet.

It is only honourable that he recuses himself from this case, rather than be unceremoniously replaced.

Vijay47: Cases involving Umno leaders of various shades of possibly inappropriate, or even illegal, conduct is par for the course in Malaysia. But we expect a certain minimal degree of responsibility and integrity from our judiciary.

Justice Sophian should have immediately recused himself when he was appointed to hear Najib's case; that would have been the proper thing to do.

Then again, many will hold that judges of the Sophian quality is par for the course in Malaysia.

Cocomomo: The fact that the allocated judge did not disclose the possible perception of conflict is cause for concern.

He should not be involved in the Najib case, and he should explain why he did not bother to highlight that there could be a perception of conflict of interest because of his brother’s connection to Pahang Umno.

Anonymous_1527925538: Yes, I think there is a lack of trust in this judge to conduct the trial fairly. More so after knowing his previous 'yellow balloon' judgment.

Ultimately: Isn't this non-disclosure a serious breach of ethics? Should not only action be taken against him for the failure to disclose his relationship and recuse himself, but also an investigation be made into how he had gotten assigned to the case?

Was it pure coincidence? Not in Bolehland, I suspect. If the judiciary is serious about reform, then more definitive action must be taken than just a mere transfer of Sophian.

Anonymous_1527658987: The Bar is certainly keen to have the judiciary reformed. But because judges don’t speak publicly, it is unclear what the judiciary as a whole thinks.

There were always some good, clean, upright judges. And then there were those who were clearly compromised. And now, there appears to be some who have rediscovered their courage.

Overall, it looks like things are improving, but in an “accelerated evolutionary” manner rather than a revolutionary one. This isn’t bad.

I am watching all this - the Bar, judiciary, Parliament, cabinet, civil society - from the Middle East. The changes taking place in Malaysia are unprecedented anywhere. There is wholesale change taking place without any violence.

To have accomplished what Malaysians have succeeded so far is already quite a feat. There have been missteps, but placed against what has been achieved, they are forgivable. Look at the elections in Pakistan if you want to see how bad things can be.

Malaysia’s rededication to democracy - not revolution - is happily, remarkably to be celebrated. I only hope Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has the strength to continue until the country has enough momentum of its own.

He has truly changed. And a man of his age coming back the way he has, there is no personal gain involved, except perhaps a need to correct his own mistakes.

And then a caveat: I worry about PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, who is part of the old consensus - the same Anwar from his battles with the old Mahathir - who sees “reform” as a vehicle for his ascent to power, as opposed to getting power to make reforms.

He and his wife’s instincts still twitch toward an amorphous form Islamism. PKR needs to grow up to being the party for reform, rather than a vehicle for Anwar’s ambitions.

PKR deputy president Azmin Ali would make a much better future prime minister for Malaysia.

Clever Voter: There are strong allegations of bias and even corruption against our judiciary. While many are not substantiated, the connections within such a patronage system are so strong that some allegations are justifiable.

The Najib regime has cleverly built its power around the judiciary, and the relevant state agencies including the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Such tripartite relationship is necessary to allow legitimacy, especially in the light of the 1MDB scandal, as well as many other state abuses resulting in financial losses that have gone unreported.

For the new establishment to create an unbiased legal system to support the rule of law, it is time consuming to untangle the knots. The connections are potential conflicts of interest.

More importantly, each of these instruments must remain separate and impartial to ensure fairness and justice.

The world has now seen how the state comprising the elected executives, judiciary, security and state prosecutors can be a dangerous proposition, a threat to democracy, and an impetus for the potential rise of a dictatorship.

It is now up to the AG's Chambers to do its part.

Anonymous_5a309591: Judges should be completely free from any form of influence. The problem in Malaysia is that some groups among the judges feel obligated to Umno-BN and will always support them blindly.

Another matter is, the Bar Council should investigate Najib's so-called hotshot lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah for his involvement in the alleged RM9.5 million poser.

Savingmalaysia: If any judge cannot be impartial, then he or she must be permanently removed from the system. How can we trust this judge anymore, for any case? -Mkini