ID :
36333
Thu, 12/18/2008 - 19:37
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/36333
The shortlink copeid
NO POLITICIANS IN JAC PLEASE, SAYS EX-JUDGE By Sabarina Baharom
KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 18 (Bernama) -- Former High Court judge K.C. Vohrah said Wednesday that politicians should not be among the four eminent persons in the much-awaited Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
Vohrah, 72, who heads the Law Reform Working Group in the Human Rights
Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) said this was to prevent the appointment of
judges from being politicised.
"It's just that like you don't want serving officers and the executive to
be involved as they are one arm of the government.
"I think there should not be any politicking on the appointment of judges,
which is why I think politicians should never come anywhere near the
commission," he told Bernama.
Vohrah was commenting on Clause 5(1) of the JAC Bill 2008 which provides
for
the appointment of four eminent persons as members of the commission.
While welcoming the move to table the bill, Vohrah also said the
parliamentarians should consider reviewing Clause 9(1) of the bill as it gave
too much power to the Prime Minister to revoke the appointment of a commission
member without giving any reason.
"Everything has to be done rationally. There must be a reason why he (PM)
did it. He must have cause to do it as spelled in Clause 10 of the bill.
Therefore, there should be no more absolute discretion like we have in the old
days," he said.
"While I was in Suhakam in 2003, we were looking for measures to improve
the judiciary, expediting the judicial process. During our meetings with the Bar
Council and judges, a lot of issues were raised on problems of delays, problems
of incompetency and also the hints of corruption.
"I am very happy that as a member of Suhakam, I helped contribute to what
has happened now. A few members of Suhakam, including myself, had met with Datuk
Nazri Aziz back in 2003 to push the matter, and he saw our point as to why we
needed the JAC.
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia better known locally as Suhakam is
a human rights watchdog in Malaysia. It was established by the Malaysian
Parliament using the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597.
He said he felt exhilarated that finally there was such a bill where in the
future the integrity of the judiciary would not be questioned again.
Vohrah said that in the past, the matter only affected a few but it created a
very bad atmosphere and image for the judiciary as well as misconception that
one could not get justice in court.
"That is bad, very bad, so I hope this bill will put things on the right
track," he said.
On the question that the bill was not clear on the promotion of judges,
Vohrah said the matter should be referred to the Federal Constitution where the
word "promotion" was never mentioned.
"You are appointed as the High Court judge or appointed to be the Federal
Court judge, so there is no question of promotion here. The word promotion is
being used loosely by the legal fraternity," he said.
He said the JAC actually could be viewed as an additional layer or filter
to get the best people in the appointment of judges.
"This is very important because you need to have a good and capable person
to hear a case involving commercial law. If you appoint someone who is
incompetent, the business could come to a stop," he said.
In allowing the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the King, JAC, he
said, should not be viewed as not making any changes from the current practice
as its main function was only to recommend those the commission felt capable of
doing the job.
Although it has been argued that the Prime Minister could ask for more
names under Clause 27 of the JAC bill and he could ignore recommendations
made by the commission, Vohrah said the matter would not defeat the purpose of
its establishment.
"Under the bill, the PM can ask for two additional names from the
commission, but it is understood that he would have to give due consideration
to the names recommended by JAC," he said.
Touching on Clause 31(2) of the bill, he said the provision was not vague
as alleged by some people as the Annual Report by JAC to parliament would only
enable the parliamentarians to discuss its recommendations on the appointment
of judges and not on their activities and conduct.
However, he said the commissioners should not be answerable to the Prime
Minister. "They should only be answerable to Parliament," he added.
Vohrah, 72, who heads the Law Reform Working Group in the Human Rights
Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) said this was to prevent the appointment of
judges from being politicised.
"It's just that like you don't want serving officers and the executive to
be involved as they are one arm of the government.
"I think there should not be any politicking on the appointment of judges,
which is why I think politicians should never come anywhere near the
commission," he told Bernama.
Vohrah was commenting on Clause 5(1) of the JAC Bill 2008 which provides
for
the appointment of four eminent persons as members of the commission.
While welcoming the move to table the bill, Vohrah also said the
parliamentarians should consider reviewing Clause 9(1) of the bill as it gave
too much power to the Prime Minister to revoke the appointment of a commission
member without giving any reason.
"Everything has to be done rationally. There must be a reason why he (PM)
did it. He must have cause to do it as spelled in Clause 10 of the bill.
Therefore, there should be no more absolute discretion like we have in the old
days," he said.
"While I was in Suhakam in 2003, we were looking for measures to improve
the judiciary, expediting the judicial process. During our meetings with the Bar
Council and judges, a lot of issues were raised on problems of delays, problems
of incompetency and also the hints of corruption.
"I am very happy that as a member of Suhakam, I helped contribute to what
has happened now. A few members of Suhakam, including myself, had met with Datuk
Nazri Aziz back in 2003 to push the matter, and he saw our point as to why we
needed the JAC.
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia better known locally as Suhakam is
a human rights watchdog in Malaysia. It was established by the Malaysian
Parliament using the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, Act 597.
He said he felt exhilarated that finally there was such a bill where in the
future the integrity of the judiciary would not be questioned again.
Vohrah said that in the past, the matter only affected a few but it created a
very bad atmosphere and image for the judiciary as well as misconception that
one could not get justice in court.
"That is bad, very bad, so I hope this bill will put things on the right
track," he said.
On the question that the bill was not clear on the promotion of judges,
Vohrah said the matter should be referred to the Federal Constitution where the
word "promotion" was never mentioned.
"You are appointed as the High Court judge or appointed to be the Federal
Court judge, so there is no question of promotion here. The word promotion is
being used loosely by the legal fraternity," he said.
He said the JAC actually could be viewed as an additional layer or filter
to get the best people in the appointment of judges.
"This is very important because you need to have a good and capable person
to hear a case involving commercial law. If you appoint someone who is
incompetent, the business could come to a stop," he said.
In allowing the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the King, JAC, he
said, should not be viewed as not making any changes from the current practice
as its main function was only to recommend those the commission felt capable of
doing the job.
Although it has been argued that the Prime Minister could ask for more
names under Clause 27 of the JAC bill and he could ignore recommendations
made by the commission, Vohrah said the matter would not defeat the purpose of
its establishment.
"Under the bill, the PM can ask for two additional names from the
commission, but it is understood that he would have to give due consideration
to the names recommended by JAC," he said.
Touching on Clause 31(2) of the bill, he said the provision was not vague
as alleged by some people as the Annual Report by JAC to parliament would only
enable the parliamentarians to discuss its recommendations on the appointment
of judges and not on their activities and conduct.
However, he said the commissioners should not be answerable to the Prime
Minister. "They should only be answerable to Parliament," he added.
