Government should explain why it declined to respond to the international legal community’s report "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000" before its publication although it was given a full month to do so

---

Media Statement
by Lim Kit Siang 

---

The joint report of International Bar Association, the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the Commonwealth Lawyers' Association and the International Lawyers' Union, which was released simultaneously in Geneva, London, India and Sri Lanka on Wednesday, was  based on a fact-finding visit to the country in April last year  by three top judges/jurists, namely Lord Abernethy from Supreme Court, Scotland, Justice N. J. McNally, Apellate Judge of the Supreme Court, Zimbabwe and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate and a Commission member of the International Commission of Jurists, India.

The fact-finding mission was asked to examine:
 

1. The legal guarantees for the independence of the judiciary in Malaysia and whether these guarantees are respected in practice. The mission was to use as its yardstick the 1985 UN Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.
2. The ability of lawyers to render their services freely. The  mission was to use the 1990 UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers as a yardstick.
3. Any impediment, either in the law or in practice, that  jeopardises the proper administration of justice.

On 17th February 2000, the four international legal organisations sent a letter to the Government of Malaysia through its Permanent Mission in Geneva enclosing two copies of the report, welcoming any comments from the government and indicating their preparedness to incorporate the comments, subject to their length, in the published version of the report.  They asked that the comments be received by 15th March 2000 and be limited to 5,000 words.  Regrettably, the Malaysian Government did not comment on the report.

The report, "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000"  is a terrible indictment on the rule of law and system of justice in Malaysia and the judicial and legal community in the country must respond to its strictures as well as recommendations for the restoration of a just rule of law.

When launching the report in London, leading lawyer Lord Goldsmith, co-chairman of the International Bar Association, said that the "dismal catalog of the many ways the rule of law in Malaysia has been eroded" has raised widespread concern that judges did not act independently where government interests were at stake.

"Running through the report is the threat of the power of the executive and its effect on justice, not by any means in all cases, but in the few but high profile cases where government interests are at stake," Goldsmith said.

The association said the joint report "expresses serious concern about the fairness of the trial of former deputy prime minister (Anwar) and the independence and impartiality of the trial judge."

The judicial and legal community, together with  the Malaysian Government, Parliament and the Human Rights Commission, cannot remain indifferent or silent to such a terrible indictment of the system of justice in Malaysia, which affects not only  one of the most important cornerstones of human rights but will jeopardise Malaysia’s chances to be a successful K-economy and  one of the top IT superpowers by attracting the world’s cream of talents to Malaysia.

The Government should publish a White Paper, which should include the report "Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000", to respond to the terrible indictment on the justice system in Malaysia by the international legal community, focussing in particular on its many  recommendations for a truly independent judiciary, including:
 

• "That the executive should recognise the independent constitutional position of the judiciary and have a proper understanding of what that involves."
• "The executive should conduct its business in such a way so as to not interfere with the independence of the judiciary in any way. Equally important, it should be careful to conduct its business in such a way as not to be seen by the reasonable observer to be interfering in the independence of the judiciary."
• "The judiciary should act and be seen to act with complete independence from the executive.  The decision making and reasoning of the judiciary in the recent cases of Lim Guan Eng and Anwar Ibrahim have quite understandably given real cause for concern in this regard."
• "The judiciary does all in its power in the wider interests of justice to counter the harshness of repressive legislation and overbearing actions on the part of the executive.  That is the role of the judiciary when faced with repression no matter where it comes from.  The burden will fall mainly on senior members of the judiciary who must take the lead. In the present situation and in light of the experiences of 1988 this will require great courage.  Even still we consider it essential if the reputation of the judicial system in Malaysia is to be restored to what it was and what it should be."
• "The choice of judges for high profile cases should be carefully considered."
• "There should be a significantly greater recruitment to the Judiciary from the Bar the members of which should be prepared to accept posts in the Judiciary."
• "(a) The  inter-changeability of lawyers and judges under the combined Judicial and Legal Service should come to an end to ensure the separation of powers and  independence of the judiciary.  (b) An independent prosecution system should be established."
• "Members of different branches of the establishment should be very careful about how they are seen in public and by the public."
• "An international conference on the independence of the judiciary be held and training sessions on human rights law be organised for its members."

(7/4/2000)