The parliamentary reply of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, yesterday on judicial reforms and the RM10.5 million ex gratia payment to six judges who were victims of the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis for two decades” has raised more questions.
Firstly, Nazri most irresponsibly tried to rewrite history about the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis for two decades” when he denied that the judges, particularly the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two supreme court judges the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah were “sacked” , saying that they were asked to “retire early”.
Nazri was flying in the face of facts of history in making such a claim, for there can be no dispute that Salleh Abas, Wan Suleiman and George Seah were sacked after the outcome of the two “kangaroo” judicial tribunals set up by the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad time, while the other three judges, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh and the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdolcadeer were victimised when they were suspended and virtually “sent to conventry” for the rest of their judicial service after their suspension was lifted.
Why did Nazri openly mislead Parliament yesterday in his dishonest and revisionist version of Malaysian judicial history?
Secondly, Nazri backtracked from the promise of judicial reform given by his predecessor Datuk Zaid Ibrahim when he responded to my speech the day earlier (see video) and categorically denied that there is any plan to amend the Malaysian Constitution to restore the original wording of Article 121(1) and the position of judicial power in the Merdeka Constitution.
One of the first pledges of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when he became Prime Minister five years ago was to uphold the doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, which implicity includes the restoration of the original wording of Article 121(1) on the inherent power of the judiciary, which was arbitrarily usurped by the Executive in a 1988 Constitutional amendment using the Barisan Nasional’s brute two-thirds parliamentary majority.
Nazri’s predecessor, Zaid Ibrahim has publicly stated that the restoration of Article 121(1) was one of the judicial reforms in the pipeline, and the then Chief Justice, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohammad had publicly supported such an amendment, when he said that the government’s proposal to amend Article 121(1) “shows that an amendment made in anger as a reaction to a decision of the court could last (only) for one generation” and that just as “water tends to find its own level”, the country was finding its way back “to the original provision”.
Why has the government lost its way and will on judicial reforms on the amendment of Article 121(1) after Nazri replaced Zaid, who resigned on a point of principle in September in protest against the abuse of power and arbitrary use of the Internal Security Act to detain senior Sin Chew reporter, Tan Hoon Cheng, DAP MP for Seputeh Teresa Kok and blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin.
A clear and unmistakable message must be sent to Abdullah, that he would have failed in his promise to push through judicial reforms before he steps down as Prime Minister next March if there is no constitutional amendment to restore the original wording and position of judicial power in Article 121(1).
The Prime Minister should direct Nazri, as the Minister responsible for shepherding the necessary legislation through Palriament on judicial reforms, to consult with the Pakatan Rakyat MPs to reach a consensus on the necessary constitutional amendments to ensure far-reaching judicial reforms – not only on the appointment of a Judicial Appointment Commission but also to restore the original wording of Article 121(1).