By SHAILA KOSHY, The Star KUALA LUMPUR: The evidence presented during the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip shows that the promotion and appointment of judges in the upper echelon of the Judiciary was open to interference and manipulation by the Executive and private citizens.
Sources said the commission found that ample evidence had emerged during its inquiry, indicating a cause for concern. They said the evidence had shown flaws and weaknesses regarding the appointment and promotion of High Court judges as well as the Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of Malaya. As a result, they added, the commission felt that there was an urgent need for judicial reforms. On Friday, the panel – comprising retired Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor as chair, retired Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong, retired Court of Appeal Judge and former Suhakam commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar, retired Solicitor-General Puan Sri Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Kim – submitted its report to the King. As a result of the evidence adduced during the enquiry, sources said the commission had recommended a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) be set up. While the panel did not suggest that the current system of appointments and promotions was totally flawed, sources said the members felt the system should be improved for transparency, accountability and good governance if the Judiciary were to have the faith of the public and foreign investors. They said the commission was concerned that there was no apparent system or criteria in the selection and promotion process of judges. The panel felt that with a JAC the Prime Minister would be able to better consider the proposed candidates because the JAC would have carefully deliberated their backgrounds, qualifications and integrity, said sources. Sources said the commission stated that the JAC would consider a judge’s performance and conduct before recommending him for promotion. They said the commission, however, did not feel the need for a Judicial Complaints Tribunal because judges were not public officers and there were already adequate provisions to deal with judicial misconduct. Sources said the commission also looked hard at the impact of the amendment to Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution – which deals with the judicial power of the Federation. They said that while the commission felt that status quo should remain, the panel decided to recommend that the Government relook Article 121(1) and revert it to its original wording because judges were divided; while some had accepted their curtailed role as agents of the Parliament, others maintained that their review powers were still intact.
 |
Subscribe RSS
