Academia can rescue democracy’s spoilt child

 They possess research capacity, subject-matter expertise and methodological discipline to end the rule of law’s shameless virtue.

One need only look at India to recognise a striking imbalance in how nations value knowledge.

Men of science – in medicine, technology, engineering, space exploration and artificial intelligence – are celebrated as global achievers. They deliver measurable outcomes, efficiency and innovation. Their work transforms societies.

The same cannot be said of the legal industry, which remains anchored almost entirely in the arts stream.

In many Commonwealth countries with high corruption perception indices, the legal system is plagued by shameless case backlogs.

In the eyes of ordinary citizens, these delays have gradually transformed into a “shameless virtue” of the rule of law – immune from accountability yet unable to perform its most basic constitutional function: timely justice.

Judicial backlogs cannot be questioned easily. Colonial constitutional protections empower courts to use contempt powers to silence public criticism. As a result, the ordinary citizen has no effective means to hold the judiciary accountable for systemic inefficiency.

That is why a recent incident in India deserves serious reflection. Educational administrators introduced a chapter for Class 8 students on the judiciary, corruption and case backlogs.

The judiciary swiftly exercised its suo motu powers to ban the book, claiming it had cited corruption without sufficient proof. Yet the backlog figures were factual and incontestable.

History will not forget this episode; it stands as an institutional embarrassment rather than a defence of judicial dignity.

Such embarrassment can, however, be remedied – if there is courage to act. The most logical solution is the empowerment of academia.

If, hypothetically, the judiciary were to become non-functional, the only institutions capable of stepping in to resolve disputes would be universities and their academic communities.

They possess research capacity, subject-matter expertise and methodological discipline. Chief justices across the Commonwealth must recognise this untapped national asset and integrate academic expertise to clear case backlogs.

The involvement of men and women of science is no longer optional in criminal investigations and during the judicial process, particularly in corruption, money laundering, abuse of power and financial crime.

Modern corruption cases are not simple factual disputes. They involve complex money trails, cross-border documentation, foreign legal regimes, forensic accounting and stringent evidential thresholds.

These crimes cannot be effectively investigated or prosecuted using the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that were originally drafted to address murder, theft and misappropriation of property.

Historically, even during the British administration, such traditional offences were investigated and prosecuted by the police without scientific complexity.

Today’s corruption cases demand interdisciplinary expertise. Existing procedural laws are plainly inadequate to trap principal actors who exploit institutional and technological sophistication.

It was therefore heartening to read former law minister Zaid Ibrahim’s public support for Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief Azam Baki’s proposal for three new laws to curb misappropriation of public funds. The proposal was timely and necessary.

Despite that, allegations raised in a recent Bloomberg report concerning the existence of a so-called corporate “mafia” cannot be brushed aside.

Yet, these two issues must not cloud one another. Productive legal reform and institutional accountability are not mutually exclusive. Excessive investigative powers without transparency and accountability will only deepen the jurisprudential truth that power, when unchecked, corrupts.

It is the constitutional obligation of the government to establish an independent investigative body comprising respected local and foreign jurists, criminologists and forensic experts to examine the Bloomberg allegations. Anything short of this risks undermining investor confidence and public trust in Malaysia’s governance institutions.

The judiciary itself must also evolve. Judges should not be appointed solely on the basis of a basic law degree. In an increasingly complex legal environment, judges must possess strong postgraduate qualifications in science, technology, economics or other relevant disciplines.

Such expertise enhances the quality of adjudication and enables cases to be resolved expeditiously, economically and justly – without backlogs.

Constitutionally, justice delayed is justice denied. Every case before the court must be disposed of without unreasonable delay. This is not idealism; it is a constitutional mandate.

There are rational, tested methodologies capable of wiping out backlogs entirely. Mediation, often proposed as a panacea, is not the answer and may itself raise constitutional concerns.

My own observations show several factors contribute directly to judicial backlogs.

First, rhetorical and excessive cross-examination benefits only the legal industry. It inflates legal fees, increases costs for litigants and prolongs trials unnecessarily. The resulting delays ultimately tarnish the image of the judiciary.

Second, a file moves only when the judge has genuine subject-matter expertise. My experience in East Malaysia showed that when judges understood the dispute deeply, lawyers were justice-oriented and willing to conclude matters efficiently and fairly.

Third, unjustified delay often stems from a lack of responsibility, a lack of expertise, or a lack of genuine commitment to judicial duty after taking the oath – an oath that immediately confers security of tenure.

Fourth, judging is not a difficult job if one possesses subject-matter knowledge. On the contrary, it becomes intellectually straightforward.

Fifth, in honest reflection on my own judicial career, it felt as though I received eight hours of pay for two hours of actual work for nearly 15 years, and now draw half my salary as a pension. In simple terms, judges should do more.

Sadly, among the three arms of government, the judiciary has become the spoiled child – insulated from public accountability, as evidenced by chronic backlogs. Writing philosophically rich judgments is meaningless if courts cannot resolve disputes efficiently. Legitimate expectation arises not from rhetoric but from results.

Procedural innovations, such as preliminary cross-examination through written witness statements – successfully implemented in East Malaysia – have demonstrably reduced trial time.

Men of science are trained to innovate, to test solutions, and to reject empty slogans such as “we agree to disagree”. The judiciary must learn the same discipline.

Otherwise, procedural anarchy will persist – and justice will remain delayed, and denied. - FMT

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