The three-man Haidar Panel to determine the authenticity of the Lingam Tape has come out with a shock decision to submit three separate reports to the government.

This is the explanation given by the Panel Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor for this extraordinary turn of events: “In view of the time constraints, it would not be fair to load one member with the task of preparing the report. That is why we have decided to submit separate reports instead.”

Even a school-child can see that Haidar is not telling the truth, and that the real reason is that the three-man panel cannot reach agreement on its finding and recommendation.

As no witness had appeared before the Haidar Panel, which had only the report of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA to go by, what is the heavy task about preparing the report which Haidar is talking about? It must be the easiest report in the nation’s 50 year history for any inquiry committee to write, as there is very little to say — since all that is required of the Panel is to determine whether the Lingam Tape is authentic or not.

There are only three possible answers to the very narrow and restricted terms of reference of the Haidar Panel, that the Lingam Tape is authentic, not authentic or no way to establish either way.

If all the three members are agreed that the Lingam Tape agreed on anyone of these three answers, and that is all they want to say, then there is no need for three separate reports.

It is only when there is disagreement among the three members that there is need for three separate reports.

I can envisage the following scenarios to warrant the writing of three separate reports:

Scenario One — The three-man Panel divided into two camps, whether two-one or one-two, with one camp holding a position on these three variations different from that of another.

Scenario Two — The panel divided into two camps — one holding that although the Panel cannot determine whether the tape is authentic, the government should nonetheless, in view of overriding national interests, establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into it and the serious allegations of perversion of the course of justice on fixing of judicial appointments, particularly in view of the recent proceedings of the 14th Law Conference and the opening speech by the former Lord President and Perak Sultan Azlan Shah calling for return of the judiciary to its former golden days. The other camp objecting to such a recommendation. Read the rest of this entry »

With five days to go for the three-man Haidar Panel to complete its finding, the Panel will go down in the nation’s history as the most useless and impotent inquiry with the least to do and the least expected of it in view of its ridiculously narrow and restricted term of reference to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape with its explosive expose of the perversion of the course of justice with serious allegations of fixing of judicial appointments and court decisions.

With the retirement of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice without any extension, the powers-that-be may be minded to think that this is opportune time to lay to rest the controversy of the Lingam Tape which was released by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Sept. 18.

Two weeks ago, the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz appeared to be coaching the Haidar Panel on its finding when he said that it would be “unfortunate if the mechanism (Haidar Panel) set up is not used by the people” as “we may conclude there is no case”!

Is the Haidar Panel being coached by Nazri to come out with the finding that the Lingam Tape is a non-issue as no witness has come forward to vouch for its authenticity?

Although such a final finding by the Haidar Panel would come as no surprise, it would nonetheless be a scandal of the first magnitude for it is just outrageous that a panel to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape had no independent powers of investigations but must depend solely on the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) for its technical expertise and forensic finding.

When Osama bin Laden occasionally emerged from his hideout to issue dire warnings to the United States government in his videotapes, no one from the White House, FBI or CIA would take the position that unless Osama or some witness surface to vouch for their authenticity, or unless the original tape is produced, the tapes concerned would be regarded as fakes!

Why then are the Malaysian Cabinet Ministers and the various government agencies, including the Haidar Panel, taking such a ridiculous stand? Read the rest of this entry »

It is a big sigh of relief all round that Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has indeed retired as Chief Justice and his application for the customary six-month extension had been rejected.

But why should it take a “shadow” constitutional crisis to effect something which is right and proper for the country?

It bespeaks of a constitution and system of justice which have gone seriously awry and should be put right without any more delay.

The following quotes from the 14th Law Conference are more than sufficient to demand bold and far-reaching reforms to restore public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary, viz:

“It is time for the judiciary to regain the public’s confidence and bring back the glory years.” — Sultan Azlan Shah

“The golden era of the judiciary was before 1988.
“Then came the watershed in 1988 and the system deteriorated so rapidly, so much so that I gratefully retired in 1995.” — former Court of Appeal judge Datuk V.C.George.

“What does the Constitution mean to me? It means nothing to me at the moment, because it can be changed at any time.” Raja Aziz Addruse, senior lawyer.

Read the rest of this entry »

In my Open Letter to Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim last Tuesday to act in the national interest to restore public confidence in the judiciary by withdrawing his controversial application for a six-month extension, I had quoted extensively from former Lord President, Perak Sultan Azlan Shah’s April 2004 postscript to his book “Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance” over the “disquiet” at the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary over the previous few years.

I had said that 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, with the entire period falling under your (Ahmad Fairuz) term as Chief Justice — a powerful reason why Tun should avert a constitutional crisis and a new crisis of confidence over the judiciary over the controversial application for a six-month extension.”

This has been confirmed by Sultan Azlan Shah In his opening speech at the 14th Malaysia Law Conference yesterday, as he said:

Will the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dismiss Sultan Azlan Shah’s increasing “disquiet” about the crisis of confidence in the judiciary as a “false” perception and baseless allegation of one person, in the way he dismissed the concern of Malaysian Bar on the ground that it is no “big deal” as only 1,000 out of 13,000 lawyers or 26 million Malaysians had taken part in the “Walk for Justice” to the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya?

“Bar Council’s conference scores double firsts” was the Sunday Star headline report for the three-day 14th Malaysian Law Conference 2007 themed “50 Years of Merdeka” at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre beginning today.

The Sunday Star headline was right but the “double firsts” will be for completely different reasons.

Last night, I learnt that the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who in a lengthy New Sunday Times interview yesterday asked “Where got crisis of the judiciary?”, will not be closing the Conference on Wednesday as announced in the Conference Programme.

This morning, I learn that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, will be boycotting the Law Conference, although he is scheduled to deliver the keynote address at the opening session from 9.40 am – 10.30 am after the opening by the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah.

Where got judicial crisis? Where got constitutional crisis?

Postscript – The Prime Minister is inviting all participants of the Law Conference to an unscheduled dinner at Hotel Renaissance tonight.

Malaysiakini also reported that Abdullah “cancelled his appearance at the opening ceremony at the eleventh hour to officiate the launch of the East Coast Economic Region project” in Kuala Terengganu.

There is growing concern that to avoid a grave constitutional crisis that will erupt with the extension of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice after Nov. 1, the country may be plunged to another equally grave crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary — the appointment of an UMNO Chief Justice for the first time in the 50-year history of Malaysia, namely Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi.

The appointment of Zaki as Federal Court Judge in early September, which involved an unprecedented “triple jump” without first serving as judge of High Court and Court of Appeal, was the first in the nation’s 50-year history, raising the question whether the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was paving the way to appoint Zaki as a future Chief Justice.

Nobody questions the legal qualifications and capabilities of Zaki but there are many legitimate questions as to the suitability of his judicial appointment, in particular as Chief Justice.

Is the country going to start the second half-century of nationhood with an UMNO Chief Justice, when for five decades, there had never been any judge who could be said to be an Umno judge in terms of his party membership and his long services to Umno as a political party.

For the past 22 years, Zaki was an active Umno member and lawyer, representing Umno in many controversial and even dubious Umno cases, culminating variously as head of Umno legal advisor, head of Umno disciplinary committee panel and in 2001 as Deputy Chairman of Umno Disciplinary Board of Appeal. Read the rest of this entry »

Well done, Haris Ibrahim of The People’s Parliament, for his initiative in launching and submitting 5,036 signatures to the Yang di Pertuan Agong in his online petition for royal intervention for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal on the perversion of the course of justice implicating the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

Haris, one of the country’s most distinguished human right advocates, submitted the petition with the signatures to the Istana Negara at 10.35 am this morning — exceeding the 5,000-signature target he had set.

Haris had wound up the signature petition earlier than expected in view of the meeting of the Conference of Rulers on Wednesday, 31st October 2007.

However, Malaysians who wish to support the “Save The Judiciary” online petition can still do so as Haris is prepared to submit a second batch of signatures before the Conference of Rulers meeting — giving a three-day window for a final push for the campaign.

As Haris told the Malaysiakini:

“If there are sufficient signatures, we’ll deliver them to His Majesty’s office so that more Malaysians can express their concerns to the monarch”.

Those who have not endorsed the “Save the Judiciary” online petition should do so immediately.

The question uppermost in many minds is whether the fourth anniversary of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi next week will be marked by his biggest constitutional crisis with the country without a Chief Justice for the first time in 50 years.

It is open secret that the application by Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim for a six-month extension as Chief Justice from November 1 has catapulted the country to the precipice of a national crisis, as it is not only opposed by the Bar Council and the civil society but also by the Conference of Rulers.

In his 55 months as Chief Justice, Ahmad Fairuz had chalked up a catalogue of failures of judicial leadership, particularly:

• His failure to build on the efforts of his predecessor Tun Abdullah Dzaiddin take the country to another critical level to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary in the tradition of the three distinguished Lord Presidents of the country, Tun Suffian, Tun Raja Azlan Shah and Tun Saleh Abas;
• His mishandling of the appointment of a new Chief Judge of Malaya to succeed Tan Sri Siti Normah Yaakob on 5th January 2007 after a six-month extension, resulting in a seven-month stand-off with the Conference of Rulers and a most deplorable situation where the country was left without a proper and lawful Chief Judge of Malaya for over seven months;
• His embroilment in the Lingam Tape scandal to the extent that the Chief Justice has become a “fugitive” from the media and the public, with the Hari Raya party of the judicial and legal service yesterday declared completely “off-limits” for the media just because the Chief Justice was attending and was afraid to be asked questions about his role and involvement in the Lingam Tape scandal!

There can be three scenarios after the meeting of the Conference of Rulers on Wednesday and Thursday: Read the rest of this entry »

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should be fully aware that any extension of the tenure of Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as Chief Justice from next month, whether for six or two months, will provoke a new firestorm of nation-wide protests from lawyers, the civil society and Malaysians, plunging the new crisis of confidence in the judiciary which had haunted the nation for the past month because of the Lingam Tape scandal, to its nadir.

It would mean that Abdullah would have a judicial crisis of confidence which is not inherited from the previous Mahathir era, but a complete product of the Abdullah premiership.

Abdullah should avert such a controversy by submitting a nominee as new Chief Justice to succeed Fairuz to the Conference of Rulers next week.

Ahmad Fairuz’ position as an outstanding Chief Justice has not been helped by recent revelation of his poor record in writing judgments, with only four reported judgments in his name in his four years seven months as Chief Justice, — i.e. less than one judgment per year! Read the rest of this entry »

I am calling this media conference to issue an Open Letter to the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim that for the national interest and to restore public confidence in the judiciary, he should withdraw his application for six-month extension on his retirement at the end of the month and to give full support for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.

This is my Open Letter to Tun Ahmad Fairuz:

Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim,
Chief Justice of Federal Court,
Malaysia.

Dear Tun,

Withdraw application for six-month extension and give full support for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape and to restore public confidence in the judiciary

I am taking this unprecedented step of issuing this Open Letter to ask you to act in the national interest and to restore public confidence in the judiciary by withdrawing your application for six-month extension on your due retirement at the end of the month and to give full support for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.

Such an action on your part will avert a new constitutional crisis over your controversial application for a six-month extension as well as a new crisis of confidence in the judiciary.

Former Lord President Sultan Azlan Shah in his postscript to his book “Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance” (pp 399 — 401) in April 2004 had written:

“Sadly, over the past few years there has been some disquiet about the judiciary. Several articles have been written, and many opinions expressed, both internationally and locally, that the independence of our judiciary has been compromised. It has been said that there has been an erosion of public confidence in our judiciary.

“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… Read the rest of this entry »

(Transcript of Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim media interview on August 21, 2007 after opening the seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim where he advocated the abolition of Common Law and denied that a Federal Court judge had over 30 unwritten grounds of judgement from High Court days)

Q. Judges having outstanding grounds of decision. What steps have you taken so far in this matter…

Ahmad Fairuz (A.F.) – Well I had checked and I find that the news that say that a judge of the Federal Court has got 30 grounds of decision not written, that’s definitely not according to our record. Our record, we do not have such thing. No Federal Court judge has got such big arrears of grounds of decision to write. We don’t have that in our record. It is something wrong there…

… preliminary investigations showed that that particular judge has read his grounds of decision in open court in the year 2002. He had read but I don’t know what happened after that. We got to check. The grounds of decision had been read, yes, the written grounds, he had already written his grounds of decision, he had read it in open court in 2002, so I am still checking on it lah…

We have not completed our investigations. The preliminary investigations showed that the judge had read his grounds of judgment in the year 2002. So the report is not that right. We have got to check first. I think, you know, 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.

So now I am investigating. I found that the judge had read his grounds of decision already in 2002. There must be something wrong somewhere. So we are investigating into it now.

Q. What about other judges? Are you looking into overall… …

A.F. – Overall. Overall. We have got records. We have got records with us as to the judges who have not written grounds of decision. In fact, in the past, judges who have not written grounds of decision have not been promoted until they finished their grounds of decision only then they are being promoted. Right? Read the rest of this entry »