BarisaI call upon the Chief Justice, Malaysia, who is acting Chief Judge (Malaya), to explain why no attention and action has been directed at the judges responsible for the delay in handing down grounds of judgment

______________
Media Statement 
by Karpal Singh
_________________

(Kuala Lumpur, Friday) : It is most distressing to note that two men on death row are undergoing a trauma of uncertainty because the Seremban High Court judge at the time they were convicted, has yet to provide the grounds of judgment. This, clearly, reflects the quality of judicial responsibility in the country. This certainly brings into sharp focus the necessity of appointment of Chief Judge (Malaya) as soon as possible. This vacancy has existed since January this year when Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob retired and her functions and duties were taken over by the Chief Justice, Malaysia Tun Dato’ Sri Ahmad Fairuz. I cannot understand why the Chief Justice, Malaysia took over as acting Chief Judge (Malaya) in the face of section 9(3) of the Courts of Judicature Act, 1964 which requires him to designate a Federal Court judge when there is a vacancy in the post of Chief Judge (Malaya), and not appoint himself. 

Be that as it may, the Seremban judge concerned has surprisingly been promoted and is now a Federal Court judge after having served as a judge of the court of Appeal. This judge had been reported not to have written grounds of judgment in at least 30 criminal and civil cases when he was a High Court judge. It is baffling how this jungle could have been promoted to the court of Appeal and thereafter to the Federal Court. This judge has certainly brought the entire judiciary into disrepute. The majority of the members of the judiciary who dignify the judicial system with responsibility and integrity should not be painted with the same brush as the judge concerned who has not been identified in the press. He should be publicly named. My firm itself is handling four death penalty appeals to the Court of Appeal where judgments have yet to be delivered by the judges concerned for the periods five, six and ninth years respectively.  

The Judges Code of Ethics ought to be invoked for the purpose of setting up a tribunal under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution to make the necessary recommendations for the removal of the judges concerned from office. What they have done amounts to judicial misconduct as the Judges Code of Ethics 1994 by rule 3 (1)(f), clearly, adverts to judges who inordinately and without reasonable explanation delay in the disposal of cases and delivery of grounds of judgment contravening that code. Further, rule 3 (1)(d) of that code provides that judges who conduct themselves dishonestly or in such a manner to bring the judiciary into disrepute and discredit thereto also contravene that code.  

The delay in handing down grounds of judgment also create social problems for families who depend on the accused for their livelihood apart from the distress and trauma suffered by these families. 

The responsibility of what has transpired ultimately lies squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who appoints judges on the advice of the Chief Justice, Malaysia. 

I also call upon the Chief Justice, Malaysia, who is acting Chief Judge (Malaya), to explain why no attention and action has been directed at the judges responsible for the delay in handing down grounds of judgment. In the public interest, he should do so forthwith. I will be bringing up this matter in the session of Parliament commencing 27^th August 2007.               

(17/8/2007)