Should the rule of law apply if it means justice delayed?

 

From Clement Stanley

The arguments tossed around as to whether Najib Razak’s newly appointed lawyers should be given more time to argue the former prime minister’s case at the Federal Court later this month are both intriguing and interesting.

There have been arguments put forward by various lawyers as to whether Najib’s new legal team should be allowed to postpone the hearing. We now know that the application has been turned down.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Ads by 

There are lawyers who have expressed an opinion about this refusal to allow a postponement; however, these opinions may count for nothing if the learned judges presiding over the case follow the rule of law in either agreeing or disagreeing with the high court and appellate court.

Very often one hears the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied”. The question arises: to whom is this phrase applicable ?

One would have thought that in this case it must be applied to everyone waiting anxiously for an outcome and an end to this saga.

If the decision is delayed for even a day, does this mean justice is denied to the people who expect a decision?

Like it or not, Najib’s case has been a landmark one where precedents have been set. It has put the judiciary in an uncompromising situation when justice has to prevail.

The decision of the courts to allow Najib the freedom to move around until his final appeal is decided, despite his conviction, has already meant that padi farmer Faiz Ruzeli who failed at the appeal court, is also walking freely until his case comes before the Federal Court.

Ex-Sabah state minister Peter Anthony who lost his case at the appeal court has now won the right to avoid going to jail until his Federal Court appeal is heard.

From here on, anyone wanting to avoid going to jail after being convicted might as well cite Najib’s case. What have you got to lose?

In a sense the decision to reject the request by Najib’s new legal team for a postponement may be seen as a way of beating the hopes of delaying an outcome of a case.

Perhaps this last throw of the dice as far as justice goes will not be entertained in all future cases.

After all, had the court agreed to this postponement, wouldn’t it have meant that Peter could have also done likewise, since he is in line to be a candidate for a parliamentary seat come GE15?

If it is as simple as appointing a new lawyer at the apex court hearing to get a further postponement of a case, why not just do it?

One can argue that only certain cases under extenuating circumstances merit such consideration.

The question is: who decides, and what would be the gauge or barometer to be used? It cannot be decided by one’s whims and fancies. It should never be. - FMT

Clement Stanley is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.