The Unfair Upholders of Justice

We have a strange government in that despite our official language which is Bahasa Malaysia (Malay), our Palace of Justice is in English (if not, a different translation which uses the word Kehakiman which in effect, avoids the use of Keadilan) simply because the opposition party is better known as Party Keadilan before and now Party Keadilan Rakyat. Similarly, the anchor party of Barisan Nasional, is better known as Umno, which is the initials of United Malay National Organization (in English) rather than in Malay.

Anyway, this post is about the overt display of unfairness in the administration of the judiciary, with scant regard for public opinions and perception and which seem more like arrogance to most people. Even before the current Chief Justice was appointed, there were objections because he was involved in Umno matters and therefore his impartiality would be in doubt if and when there are political cases involving Umno. The Perak legal impasse is now going through the courts, so his action or inaction will be perceived to be bias no matter how, and especially if there is obvious discrimination in BN's favour. Let's look at another letter to Malaysiakini:

Judicial shenanigans over stay order
Gerard Lourdesamy May 14, 09 5:32pm

Something must indeed be rotten in the Palace of Justice, Putrajaya! Chief Justice Zaki Tun Azmi and Appeals Court President Alauddin Sheriff should explain why is it that despite the Court of Appeal having 22 judges, the ousted Perak MB Mohd. Nizar Jamaluddin must wait for four days until Monday, May 18 to have his setting aside application of the stay order made by Appeals Court Judge Ramly Ali in favour of the incumbent MB Mohd. Zambry Abdul Kadir be heard and disposed off by a panel of three judges?

Is it because some people are more equal than others under the law? Zambry can have his application heard and disposed off in a matter of two-an-a-half hours after filing by a single judge of the Appeals Court but Nizar is made to wait for four days.

In the eyes of the Malaysian public, this blatant double standard and partiality being displayed by the court only brings the entire administration of justice into disrepute, public contempt and odium. In my 16 years of practice, I have never heard of a case where the Court of Appeal could be moved within two-an-a-half hours to hear and grant a stay.

Usually, even with a certificate of urgency it is more like two-an-a-half months! Is this because certain lawyers with political connections to the establishment are treated differently by the judges, registrars and court staff? Does the presence of the attorney-general in a matter unrelated to public interest (since it was only a stay application between the parties inter se) guarantee an astoundingly early hearing date by the court to the extent that even Nizar's lawyers were caught off-guard and were only aware of the hearing by chance?

Justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done - but not just as an illusion to deceive the public into thinking that the judiciary is independent, fair and transparent, advocating change, reform and improvement when in reality everything is purely cosmetic and insubstantial when certain vested interests are involved or have to be served. Judges and judicial officers are meant to uphold and defend the constitution and the rule of law without fear or favour even at the expense of personal interests, financial gain, recognition or reward. Are these values so difficult to follow and practice by those concerned?