The comparison between laws on the contempt of court and the Internal Security Act (ISA) made by the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Mohd Eusoff Chin at a talk on “Contempt of Court” in Penang last Saturday is most unfortunate and inappropriate.
The ISA, with its detention without trial powers, is an infringement of the fundamental right of the liberty of the person which has been recognised and enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution, and is rightly held as abhorrent and obnoxious in a civil society which the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have supported as the nation-building objective of Malaysia.
Contempt of court laws however are of a completely different nature, as they are designed to protect the court and the judicial process to ensure the fair administration of justice.
In the case of the ISA, all advocates of a civil society must work for its repeal and the annulment of detention without trial powers of the government. However, in the case of contempt of court laws, nobody will advocate its abolition but its clarification and even codification so as to remove all abuses and arbitrariness which could undermine the very objective to dispense justice.
If public confidence in the judiciary is to be promoted, judges must accept that it is not only lawyers but judges who could commit contempt of court and the urgent need to remove all possibilities of abuses or arbitrary exercise of contempt of court powers by judges.
As the administration of justice is not the sole prerogative of the judges, but is equally the responsibility of the legal profession, the Bar and the Bench should work together to remove public apprehensions about the abuses and arbitrary exercise of contempt of court powers by judges - to the detriment of the interests of litigants.
Let 1997 see a restoration of civil and co-operative relations between the Bench and the Bar, in the common interest of the administration and dispensation of justice, starting with a joint consultation on the laws of contempt of court to remove all arbitrary abuses of power.
The “bad blood” between the Bench and the Bar had gone on for too long, and it very sad to see Bill after Bill being introduced in Parliament, including those directly affecting the administration of justice, without any consultation or even prior notification to the Bar Council.
The Bench and the Bar must rise above their history of “bad blood” of the past. For a start, they should set up a joint Bench-Bar working committee on contempt of court laws, which should also invite public views and make recommendations as to how contempt of court laws could be made clearer so as to be able to better serve the interests of justice by removing or curbing all forms of arbitrary abuses.
(30/12/96)