Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue for a single day as Chief Justice

I am calling this media conference to prove that the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had misled Parliament in his denial that he had advocated the abolition of the Common Law at the seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim two months ago on August 21, which made the front-page headline, “Mansuh Common Law — Ketua Hakim Negara mahu perundangan lapuk Inggeris diganti”, in the Utusan Malaysia the next day.

On 5th September 2007, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz replied in Parliament to my earlier speech criticizing Ahmad Fairuz’ call for the abolition of the common law system as being most unbecoming of the highest judicial officer of the land sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution and the Merdeka social contract.
Nazri gave a flat denial that Ahmad Fairuz had ever made such a call for the abolition of the common law system saying that the Chief Justice’s speech made no such mention whatsoever.

Nazri blamed reporters and their poor quality reporting for the mistake. However, when I asked why no correction had been made by Ahmad Fairuz for close to two weeks of the public controversy over his call, Nazri said Parliament was the best forum for the explanation.

Nazri also made the following claim:

“Hari pertama perkara ini keluar, Ketua Hakim telah menghubungi saya untuk menyatakan bahawa itu merupakan satu perkara tidak benar yang dituliskan dalam akhbar. Saya tidak menyalahi beliau kerana dengan izin I have got bad experience juga dengan surat khabar. Apa juga yang kita nafikan yang dilaporkan mereka, tidak mendapat tempat yang sama seperti mana mereka telah melaporkan sehari sebelum itu sebab credibilitynya. Saya rasa, pada saya, it is a waste of time.”

It is significant that up to now, Ahmad Fairuz had neither refuted nor confirmed Nazri’s denial on his behalf that he had ever called for the abolition of the common law although the Chief Justice should know that his call had set off a public controversy in legal circles and the public domain which is still raging on.

Did Ahmad Fairuz call for the abolition of the common law in Malaysia 50 years after independence?

I have here a tape recording of Ahmad Fairuz media interview after his opening speech at the seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim on August 21, which clearly confirmed his call for the abolition of the Common Law, viz:

“My own opinion I think there is no need for us to go to the Common Law of England now. We have a lot of our pakar undang-undang sekarang ini yang boleh memberi pendapat masing-masing mengenai undang-undang bagaimana cara nak solve undang-undang. Why should we go to Common Law?”

Earlier, Ahmad Fairuz told the press about his proposal at the seminar:

“I am just suggesting to the seminar, perhaps they can look into this matter, whether you want to still maintain and keep this position ataupun you show to the government that we can put another substitute to this method, why go to Common Law? And pulak tu tahun 1957?”

Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue for a single day as Chief Justice. If he could use Nazri to mislead Parliament to deny on his behalf that he had advocated the abolition of Common Law in August, when he had actually done so as proven by this Fairuz Tape, he could easily mislead Nazri a second time to issue the denial that he was the other party in the Lingam Tape.

In his 55 months as Chief Justice since March 2003, Ahmad Fairuz had brought the judiciary into a new crisis of confidence and greater national and international disrepute joining the ranks of Tun Abdul Hamid Omar (1988 — 1994) and Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin (1994 — 2000) as the three Chief Justices who had brought shame and ignominy to the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice.

It is a national tragedy that Ahmad Fairuz had not chosen to join the ranks of illustrious Lord Presidents like Tun Mohamed Suffian Mohamed Hashim (1974 — 1982) and Raja Tun Azlan Shah (1982 — 1984) who had won international respect and standing for the Malaysian judiciary and system of justice which had been dissipated away in the past two decades of one judicial crisis after another.

Writing in April 2004 in his book “Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance”, former Lord President Sultan Azlan Shah observed:

“Concerns have been expressed that some judges were not writing judgments, or that there were long delays in obtaining decisions or hearing dates in certain instances. Further, the conduct of certain judges was being questioned in public… Whether these allegations are true, is not for me to say. However, having been a member of the judiciary for many years, it grieves me when I hear of such allegations. Since Independence, the early judges have always cherished the notion of an independent judiciary and had built the judiciary as a strong and independent organ of government. The public had full confidence of the judiciary and accepted any decision then made without any question. Unfortunately, the same does not appear to be the case in recent years.”

Sultan Azlan Shah’s critique of the parlous state of the judiciary is even more pertinent today than when he wrote it in April 2004, the entire period falling under the term of Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice — a powerful reason why it does not serve the national interest for Ahmad Fairuz to continue an extra day as Chief Justice.

In the media interview on August 21, Ahmad Fairuz was also asked about the scandal of a Federal Court judge who had an outstanding arrears of over 30 grounds of decisions as High Court judge which had not delivered.

It is significant that at the time, Ahmad Fairuz gave a blanket denial that there was such a Federal Court judge, even moralising:

“It is very dangerous when we said something which is not the truth. In Islam it’s called fitnah. It is very bad. You don’t say anything which is not the truth. You check first then you say it.”

However, when New Straits Times a few days later front-paged a report that a Federal Court judge had not written grounds of judgment in 33 criminal and civil cases, which were thus stuck in the appeals process; and DAP Chairman and MP for Bukit Glugor, Karpal Singh named in Parliament the Federal Court judge concerned, Datuk Hashim Yusoff, who had accumulated 35 unwritten judgments; the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi broke his silence just before the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebration on August 28 that the Chief Justice must answer the allegation that a senior judge had failed to write the grounds of judgment in over 30 cases.

On Sept. 5, Ahmad Fairuz announced that he had written to the Prime Minister about the Federal Court judge who had not written his grounds of judgment in 35 cases when he was High Court judge but he declined to disclose what he had told the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister was right to demand judicial accountability from the Chief Justice, but Ahmad Fairuz had also violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in only accounting directly and personally to the Prime Minister when he owes to the entire Malaysian public the responsibility of judicial accountability.

Up to now Malaysians have been denied information about the scandal of the Federal Court judge who had accumulated 35 unwritten judgments from his High Court tenure, which is also a most adverse reflection of Ahmad Fairuz’ judicial leadership.

There are ample grounds to indict Ahmad Fairuz for his failure as Chief Justice to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary, including:

  • Failure to honor his public undertaking when he first became Chief Justice more than four years ago to recast the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 to restore public confidence in judicial independence, impartiality and integrity.
  • Publicly tarnishing the image of the judiciary by failing to take action and substantiate grave charges which he made against judges for accepting bribes.
  • Failure to take action against judges, including from the Federal Court, who had obstructed the course of justice in not writing up judgments;
  • The seven-month constitutional deadlock over the appointment of a suitable Chief Judge of Malaya after the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Normah Yaakob on January 5, 2007.
  • The Lingam Videotape scandal implicating him in an expose on the perversion of the course of justice involving the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court decisions and judgments.

With the production of proof that Ahmad Fairuz had lied when he denied that he had advocated the abolition of the Common Law in August and that he had misled Parliament last month with the denial, using Nazri as his tool, Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue as the highest judicial officer of the land and should tender his resignation forthwith, without exposing the judiciary to further crisis of confidence.

Under the circumstances, any notion of an extension for Ahmad Fairuz’ tenure as Chief Justice from Nov. 1 for whatever period would be completely unthinkable.

(Media Conference Statement at the DAP PJ Hqrs on Saturday, 20th October 2007)

  1. #1 by bystander on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 11:31 am

    Fully concur. have said it many months earlier that this CJ guy is bias and not independent (based on his judgements). This guy is useless. If CJ is HP6 and wants to abolish common law, can one imagine what the others pakar pakar undang undang (presumably his cronies) he is referring to are like. Gee, what is wrong with this country. Cant even walk properly and wants to go to space.

  2. #2 by dawsheng on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 11:34 am

    “It is very dangerous when we said something which is not the truth. In Islam it’s called fitnah. It is very bad. You don’t say anything which is not the truth. You check first then you say it.” Ahmad Fairuz

    What kind of muslim is Ahmad Fairuz?

  3. #3 by LittleBird on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 12:32 pm

    Remember what Manjit said regarding someone in the AG’s chamber who wanted Nalla to implicate Anwar? So long that is not corrected expect no changes.

  4. #4 by Libra2 on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 12:50 pm

    It is very dangerous when we said something which is not the truth. In Islam it’s called fitnah. It is very bad. You don’t say anything which is not the truth. You check first then you say it.”
    Who is speaking? The liar says you shouldn’t lie. What a lowly human being occupying such a high office? And the thick skin liar is still sitting on the bench!!!!!!!

  5. #5 by bystander on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 1:32 pm

    UMNoputras and their patrons are liars and shameless creatures.

  6. #6 by wits0 on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 2:13 pm

    Once the sense of shame is kaput, all things evil follow. This figures, individually and collectively.

    It’s common enough, in everyday life, to find bosses who’ll preach honesty while they themselves are complete liars. In Bodohland, this is much more damaging because of its ingrained taboo against the slightest sign of “lawan towkay” on principles. A cultural sickness nurtured by “acceptable” hypocrisy.

  7. #7 by straight talk on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 2:21 pm

    What do you mean only Fairuz not fit to continue be CJ for a single more day. I would include Teksi Nazri and Chendol Zam as also not fit to be a minister a day more. Nazri has continued to mislead Parliament day in and day out. He does not belong in Parliament…he belongs in the zoo with the monkeys.

  8. #8 by straight talk on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 2:44 pm

    Our CJ’s from Hamid Omar has lived on “Fitnah”.. Hamid Omar “how come you drive a mercedec that belonged to a person who has a case coming up before you” Answer… I bought it at a used car…it is a coincidence” and the entire country bought it.

    Eusoff Chin.. How come you and you family are photographed with VK Lingam & Family in Australia – he is appearing before you in some case it is not proper” Answer ‘it was coincidence…we met in Australia…you know when…’ the whole country bought it

    Fairuz…. ‘It is not me’ told thro’ spokesman teksi Nazri…Are we going to buy it as well….

    Mr PM wake up….everything under you is going to the dogs… you don’t know what is happening….Note Ali Rustam has called you a ‘pengecut’ he has aligned himself with Najib… The rest of the MB’s and Ministers are going to team up with Najib. You are going to be left with KJ at your side. Just like how the late Ghaffar was forced to withdraw from the Number 2 post. Be careful the carpet is being pulled from under your feet….

  9. #9 by DrL on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 8:44 pm

    Our CJ is not different from a clown in the eyes of the world…He should resign immediately as not to continue to disgrace our Nation. If he has the slightest love for our Nation and a true Muslim…he should speak the truth and not continue with more lies.

  10. #10 by justice_fighter on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 9:32 pm

    In order to sack Ahmad Fairuz, the citizens must sack Pak Lah first.

  11. #11 by lakshy on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 9:44 pm

    The fact that he became CJ is a mistake…………..So what more any talk about extension!

  12. #12 by lakshy on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 9:46 pm

    No need to sack Pak Lah. If all his selections are rejected by our Agung, he will eventually be seen as a lame duck. Then the ambitious ones in umno will do the needful.

  13. #13 by lakshy on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 9:50 pm

    The nation is being led by katak di bawah tempurung. We have India recording 8-9% growth on one side and China on the other side. Both have huge human capital, and are developing their natural resources and human capital wisely.

    Here we say…………Chinese and Indians can balik! We have to pull together as a nation to develop and advance so we can face the challenges from China and India. But our kataks are merrily jumping in the muddy waters and not moving strategically…….

    Whata re our long term goals……..where is the roadmap to take us there?

    All we hear about is islamisation and regression……..thats a crying shame because islam calls its followers to embrace knowledge!

  14. #14 by straight talk on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 10:56 pm

    Hi now the chinese must claim back the Chief Ministership of Melaka. It was agreed that it will be rotated between MCA and UMNO. These UMNO buggers only know how to take. Look at all the things that is happening..Minister of Education just this week at somewhere outside Malaysia said our strenght is our diversity and the multi religious flavour of our country. However in Melaka..Ali Rustam is asking all Chinese and Indians to leave and that UMNO can rule the country without any help. HOI MCA, MIC, GERAKAN, PPP, SUPP, AND ALL THE OTHERS WAKE UP. HOW CAN RUSTAM TREAT YOU ALL IN THIS MANNER AND YOU ACCEPT IT WITHOUT A WHIMPER…SHOW IN THE GE WHAT CHINESE AND INDIANS ARE MADE OFF…

  15. #15 by wits0 on Saturday, 20 October 2007 - 11:51 pm

    UMNO buggers only blather and contradict themselves…this is their unchangeable signature tune enabled by a slavish MSM of Bodohland.

  16. #16 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 1:20 am

    Relax folks! CJ’s term will be extended but for a period shorter than the six months asked for. If his tenure is not so extended it is tantamount to admitting that all is not well with the Judiciary – even that the allegations about him is true. That cannot be allowed to happen. But to extend his tenure as CJ for the full period asked for is to ignore the demand for a public inquiry into his alleged role. They don’t want that either!

  17. #17 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 1:22 am

    PM is likely to agree to extending his tenure for two months or some short period and put him on leave for the entire period.

  18. #18 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 2:11 am

    Nazri is such a pathetic scatterbrain.

    CJ is no better.

  19. #19 by sotong on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 8:42 am

    Common Law has worked for many developed countries, including S’pore.

    Abolish Common Law and replace with Taliban Law???

  20. #20 by straight talk on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 12:50 pm

    No, Not taliban Law….UMNO law.. U May Not Object…that is why King May Not Object to CJ’s extension..

  21. #21 by bystander on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 1:12 pm

    What morons do we have? A CJ who wants to abolish common law and replaced with taliban law? What wrong with these people’s brains? They are obviously of very low IQ.

  22. #22 by justiciary on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 6:43 pm

    Hi folks,as it is this country is run by a bunch of morons,hypocrites,liars,cheats,racial and religious extremists,corrupts,the half-baked,the myopic,the incompetent,the lazy and lackadaisical,the spendthrift,the greedy etc,etc.Soon we will be on the rocks.

  23. #23 by negarawan on Sunday, 21 October 2007 - 10:26 pm

    Of course we all know that BN, especialy UMNO, wants to maintain a kangaroo court in Malaysia to protect their own skin, and to further their own selfish and greedy causes. Hopefully God will bring back justice to Malaysia one day, and may all the corrupted politicians in BN be punished.

  24. #24 by undergrad2 on Monday, 22 October 2007 - 8:07 am

    “Soon we will be on the rocks.”

    Yep, I’ll have whisky on the rocks anytime.

  25. #25 by slashed on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 - 8:17 pm

    Our CJ and ‘de facto law minister’ both share something in common: they do not sound like lawyers at all…

You must be logged in to post a comment.