Lim Kit Siang

So, what happened to separation of powers?

— Justice Seeker
The Malaysian Insider
Apr 12, 2012

APRIL 12 — In reaching her decision on the Lynas matter, High Court judge Rohana Yusof obviously was not interested in the separation of powers or the raison d’etre of a court system which is the attainment of justice.

I just read her reasons for not giving the residents leave to challenge the Atomic Energy Licensing Board’s decision to give Lynas a temporary operating licence to run its controversial plant in Gebeng.

She said that as a parliamentary select committee and the minister of science and innovation were handling two separate hearings, it would not be proper for the courts to give the 10 residents their opportunity for judicial review.

Rohana then went on to say that it would not be proper to circumvent Parliament and the minister. Really?

She was also concerned that there could be “confusion and embarrassment” if the court’s decision was different from the ministers.

Once again, really?

Surely it is not the court’s concern whether in seeking justice and truth, embarrassment befalls anyone. The nature of an adversarial system is that in any matter, there is a winner and a loser. The court’s only objective is to ensure that justice is served and not to put up illusory argument of Parliament proceedings and some ministerial review taking precedence over judicial review.

It is frustrating when the small man cannot even get his foot into the courtroom to make substantive arguments against AELB’s decision to give Lynas a TOL. Maybe Rohana does not know that the select committee only comprises BN reps and it is the BN government which approved the Lynas project.

Also, Maximus Ongkili is in BN.

Is it even reasonable to expect that the anti-Lynas lobby will get a fair hearing from the select committee or Ongkili?

And now they have been deprived of taking their case to court. The threshold for a leave application is really low and it is a shame when courts deny Malaysians their right to judicial review in a matter of national interest.

Just as an aside, the Parliament Speaker routinely says sub judice to block any discussion of matters which may embarrass the government and now a judge is saying that it is not appropriate to hear a case because Parliament is discussing the matter.

What a wonderful tandem. My advice to Putrajaya is that beware of making people angry and frustrated.

Exit mobile version