The Malaysian Bar has condemned the conduct of former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak and his lawyers at the SRC appeal before the Federal Court.
Its president, Karen Cheah, said it amounted to an abuse of Malaysia’s judicial process and brought the system into disrepute, and the lawyers involved should face disciplinary action.
She said while Najib is entitled to discharge his lawyers and appoint new ones, doing so also means taking the risk that the court may not allow a postponement while the new legal team takes over since such postponements are not an automatic entitlement.
“The decision to change lawyers so late at this stage was his. Therefore, any purported injustice he claims himself to be in, if any, is surely self-inflicted,” she said.
As for Najib’s lawyers, Cheah said the rules of legal practice stipulate that lawyers shall not accept any case unless they are reasonably certain of being able to appear and represent the client on the hearing dates fixed by the court.
She added that the lawyers must also make every effort to be ready for trial on those dates.
“Read together, both rules clearly indicate that a lawyer must address his/her mind and assess that he/she is able to proceed with the case before deciding if he/she can take on the matter.
“The underlying paramount duty to the court, respect for the administration of justice, and upholding of the dignity of the legal profession, are embedded and should be deeply rooted in all lawyers,” she said, citing Rules 6(a) and 24(a) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978.
Najib is appealing at the Federal Court against his conviction for one count of abuse of power, three counts of criminal breach of trust and three money laundering charges in relation to SRC International.
In late July, Najib discharged the team led by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as his counsel and appointed the firm Messrs Zaid Ibrahim Suflan TH Liew & Partners.
The new team then sought to postpone the appeal for several months to make preparations, but the court rejected this.
It also rejected the team’s bid to introduce new evidence that they claim would show the trial judge Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali had a conflict of interest. The court ruled the supposed evidence had no relevance to the charges against Najib.
Najib then dismissed the lawyers from Zaid’s firm except for the lead counsel Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, who had earlier sought to discharge himself but was denied by the court.
The hearing will resume on Tuesday, though Hisyam said he wouldn’t be making any submissions because he won’t be prepared.
Cheah’s statement is reproduced in full below:
The Malaysian Bar is aghast with the slew of developments unfolding before our eyes in the case involving former prime minister, Dato’ Sri Najib Razak, at the Federal Court.
The nation is witnessing our justice system being abused and brought to disrepute through the frantic acts and numerous attempts to postpone the hearing of the case, application to discharge from acting for the former prime minister, defiance by refusing to proceed with submissions on the appeal after the Federal Court had made its ruling, and the sudden discharge of Zaid Ibrahim, Liew Teck Huat and Rueben Mathiavaranam, by Dato’ Sri Najib Razak.
The public must be made aware that the level of professionalism expected of advocates and solicitors is measured against the existing rules on practice and etiquette. The Bar Council expects adherence by all lawyers so as to preserve the highest professional standards and in upholding the dignity of the legal profession. The Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (“LPPER”) sets the barometer for the conduct of lawyers in the country and also reflect the underlying paramount duty of lawyers to the court as officers of the court.
The Malaysian Bar takes the position that when a new lawyer takes over a case, the lawyer must adhere to Rule 6(a) of the LPPER, which states that an advocate and solicitor shall not accept any brief unless he is reasonably certain of being able to appear and represent the client on the hearing dates fixed by the court; and the new lawyer must also adhere to Rule 24(a) of the LPPER which provides that an advocate and solicitor shall make every effort to be ready for trial on the day fixed.
Read together, both rules clearly indicate that a lawyer must address his/her mind and assess that he/she is able to proceed with the case before deciding if he/she can take on the matter. The underlying paramount duty to the court, respect for the administration of justice, and upholding of the dignity of the legal profession, are imbedded and should be deeply rooted in all lawyers.
Whilst the former prime minister is entitled to appoint new lawyers to take over a case for whatever reasons, he takes the risk of facing the possibility that the court would not necessarily allow any requests for postponement because a lawyer who takes over the case must be in a position to proceed with any prior dates that have been fixed by the court.
By the same token, the client that discharges his/her lawyer or a lawyer who seeks to be discharged from representing his/her client, is still subject to the overall control and discretion of the court whether to allow such discharge. Simply put, it is not an automatic entitlement.
The various attempts to undermine the justice system through such unscrupulous strategies are a perversion of our justice system and an abuse of the court process. The advocates and solicitors involved in such acts have conducted themselves unprofessionally and would have to face disciplinary action.
It has been observed that Dato’ Sri Najib Razak has abruptly discharged his legal team again today, making it the second time he is resorting to such tactics. The decision to change lawyers so late at this stage was his. Therefore, any purported injustice he claims himself to be in, if any, is surely self-inflicted.
His expectations of a fair trial, of which has been fully accorded to him at all material times, must also mean that he places himself in the judicial system without any crafty schemes - especially if he truly values his right to liberty.
What is apparent is that there have been no convincing reasons given for such discharge twice, either so near to the hearing dates or even during hearing of the matter at the Federal Court. Such hearing dates were not only fixed well in advance, but publicly publicised. Any attempt to change the narrative to one of purported victimisation is highly mischievous.
The Malaysian Bar notes that there have been vicious and unwarranted attacks or threats levelled on the Judiciary and the Chief Justice as a result of the unfolding events at the Federal Court in this case, and wholly condemns the unfair anti-judiciary rhetoric and sentiments painted by irresponsible parties. The Malaysian Bar stands in solidarity with the Judiciary and calls on them to remain resolute and not succumb to such unsavoury pressure. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.