The Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim announced at the close of the Asia-Pacific Judicial Reform Forum yesterday that a study would be conducted on judicial systems in the region to determine if a judicial commission on the appointment and promotion of judges would ensure the independence of the judiciary.

He said judicial experts will be looking at how judges are appointed and promoted, then look at which system would be best for the independence of the judiciary — and the preferred system will be recommended for countries in the region to adopt.

Justice Kenneth Madison Hayne of the High Court of Australia said six weeks would be set aside to collate the information and present it in a usable format.

He said: “Factual information will definitely be published, but we would be circumspect about publishing opinions expressed in the survey”.

Fairuz’ announcement is a disappointment for three reasons:

Firstly, while it is commendable that the Asia-Pacific Judicial Roundtable Forum wants to make a regional study whether a judicial commission on the appointment and promotion of judges would ensure the independence of the judiciary, it is most presumptuous for the judges at the Judicial Roundtable Forum to assume that only members of the judiciary are most qualified to decide on the question, excluding other equally if not more important stakeholders such as lawyers and laypersons of the civil society.

In fact, it is a very pertinent question whether judges are the most suitable and capable persons to solely decide on the question of the independence of the judiciary, which affect not only judges but the larger societies which they serve.

The history of mankind has proved again and again that the principle of the independence of the judiciary had often to be salvaged and established not only in the face of opposition of reactionary power-holders but in many cases in the teeth of opposition of serving judges as well. Read the rest of this entry »