Cabinet should establish a Judicial Propriety and Integrity Commission to
uphold public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of judges
===============================================
Yesterday, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court Mohd Eusoff Chin broke
his silence about the photographs of him and lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam
holidaying in New Zealand which had been posted on the Internet for the
past few years.
He said he had paid for his holiday in New Zealand in 1994 where he
"bumped" into Lingam. He said he was on his way to a zoo when he met
Lingam who tagged along and later posed for photographs with him.
He added that even when he was visiting London, he had met some senior
lawyers, law students and court officials, and they liked to have their
photographs taken with him.
He said: "Sometimes people put their face close to you or put their
hands over your shoulder when taking photographs, and you just can't
push them away."
As a result of Eusoff's comments, I visited the Internet site which put
up four photographs of the families of Eusuff and Lingam holidaying
together in New Zealand. In two of the four photographs, it was not just
Lingam putting his hand over Eusoff's shoulder, but also Eusuff putting
his hand over Lingam's shoulder.
One photograph shows the two families in a boat. Did they go to the zoo
in a boat?
Be that as it may, national and international opinion take a serious
view of the principle behind the controversy, now involving a Cabinet
Minister, that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be
done; that judges must not only be fair, but seen to be fair, including
that judges should not be perceived as having specially close personal
relationships with certain lawyers who appear before them.
It was in this regard that the Minister in the Prime Minister's
Department responsible for law and justice, Datuk Rais Yatim, said in
Canberra last month that Eusoff had been told that it was inappropriate
to holiday with the counsel of a prominent business tycoon.
Rais (whom Eusoff ridiculed as Minister for "tables and chairs") said in
Australia: "Certainly such socialising, shall I say, is not in keeping
with the proper behaviour of a judicial personality and we have
intimated to the Chief Justice that this is a behaviour improper, and
this has been intimated to him in no uncertain terms."
Yesterday, Eusoff denied that anyone had talked to him, saying: "As far
as I am concerned no one had any dialogue with me. Never talked to me at
all. Not only about this. Not about any other matter as well. He only
speaks to the papers."
The ball is now in the court of Rais and the Cabinet, who should make it
very clear to the Chief Justice and the judges as to what is proper and
improper judicial behaviour.
The Malaysian public would want to know whether the Cabinet is going to
back up Rais in his stand that the Chief Justice's "socialising" with
lawyer Lingam while holidaying in New Zealand was not "proper behaviour
of a judicial personality".
If the Cabinet backs Rais, then the Cabinet should set up a Royal
Commission of Inquiry to review all cases involving both the Chief
Justice on the bench and Lingam as one of the counsels to remove all
doubts that such improper behaviour had in anyway compromised judicial
independence, impartiality and integrity.
A Judicial Impropriety and Integrity Commission should be set up to
uphold public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality
of judges with powers both to receive and investigate public complaints
of any lapses as there is no proper mechanism to deal with this problem.
The Anti-Corruption Agency is just unacceptable as it has no record of
effectively dealing with serious complaints about corruption.
Furthermore, not all complaints about improper judicial conduct fall
under the purview of the Anti-Corruption Agency.
The comment by the Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Lamin Yunus when
asked about the judiciary's "tarnished image" is most distressing.
Lamin's reply that he did not care about such criticism "as long as my
conscience is clear" is reflective of a judiciary which has contempt for
public opinion and the principles of accountability and transparency
which runs counter to the fundamental principles of good governance.
Parliament at its meeting next month should hold a full and
comprehensive debate on the state of the judiciary in the country.
- Lim Kit Siang -
