‘Show stick’ to judges who refuse to write grounds, CJ urged

A source calls for errant judges to be hauled up before the judges' ethics committee or a constitutionally empanelled tribunal.

On Monday, Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh directed all judges to furnish their written grounds of judgment within the prescribed eight-week timeline.

PETALING JAYA:

 Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh may be compelled to act against judges who fail to deliver their written grounds of judgment on time, including by recommending that a tribunal be formed for their removal, a source says.

The source, who is familiar with the workings of the judiciary, said Wan Ahmad Farid could as a first step refer errant judges to the Judges’ Ethics Committee (JEC), as the failure to provide litigants with written grounds may violate judicial ethics.

Section 7 of the Judges’ Code of Ethics imposes a duty on judges to deliver written judgments promptly. Under the code, the JEC is empowered to suspend a judge for up to one year if found guilty of a breach.

The source, who spoke to FMT on condition of anonymity, said judges may be removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on grounds of inability or misbehaviour on the report of a tribunal under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution

The provision allows the chief justice to propose that a tribunal be set up.

“The stick should be finally shown. Judges should be hauled up before the JEC or a tribunal,” the source said.

At a speech in conjunction with the opening of the legal year on Monday, Wan Ahmad Farid directed that all judges furnish their written grounds of judgment within the prescribed eight-week timeline.

FMT understands that several High Court judges owe a substantial number of judgments, despite litigants repeatedly writing to request them as part of the appeal process.

However, asking these judges to leave could be met with resistance, particularly as their monthly salary has been raised by 30% beginning this year, the source acknowledged.

“For a start, he (the chief justice) could persuade those underperforming to leave. There are precedents involving two judges who were asked to retire early when Zaki Azmi helmed the judiciary,” the source added.

JAC’s role in the matter

Lawyer Rafique Rashid Ali said the problem would not arise if the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) nominated candidates with the capability and capacity to dispense justice expeditiously.

“Judges who have found guilty and sentenced convicts for offences that carry the death penalty or long prison terms must make it a point to deliver their grounds as soon as possible as the liberty of the person is at stake,” he said.

He said that without the written grounds, the convict would languish in prison indefinitely, as the appellate court would hear their appeals only after the written judgment is ready. This goes against the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied,” Rafique added.

“A judgment written immediately after a trial would also be of better quality, as the facts of the case would still be fresh in the judge’s mind,” he added.

Rafique called for judges to emulate Wan Ahmad Farid’s work ethic, noting that he is a judge who tends to provide his grounds on the same day he delivers his verdict.

Constitutional right to sound judgment

Lawyer R Kengadharan said a fresh and well-reasoned judgment could persuade a litigant not to file an appeal, but this may not be the case if it is delivered many months after the trial.

“It is the constitutional right of every litigant to obtain a reasoned judgment, as this demonstrates judicial accountability,” he said.

Competent but overlooked for promotion?

Lawyer Syed Iskandar Syed Jaafar said there was also rumblings among competent judges who were overlooked by the JAC for promotion.

“Some were not promoted despite having outstanding judgments, and the JAC appears to have overlooked this factor,” he said.

Syed Iskandar said Section 23(3) of the JAC Act states that a person who is a serving judge or judicial commissioner must not be appointed if he has three or more pending judgments that are overdue by 60 days or more from the date they are deemed due. - FMT