If there were abuses of power within the corridors of the judiciary, it is entirely serving of the interest of justice, integrity of judiciary and ultimately interest of nation that it be disclosed whether by a serving or retired judge. These imperatives (substance) override petty issues of propriety or impropriety of how, when and the way abuse is disclosed (form).

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Dr Rais Yatim's criticisms that Justice Shaik Daud Mohd Ismail should have, when he was still holding office, made a police report citing specific date(s) of and information on the "instructions" purportedly given to him, may be countered on the following grounds:

Basically, the course of 'proper' action suggested by Rais would do no good. When Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang wrote in his election petition judgment that there was an apparent attempt from the top to influence his decision, police investigations were initiated that yielded no results.

This is because "instructions" were often verbal and not written and unless the telephone lines in the courts and judicial chambers are bugged, there would exist no evidence of these happenings.

Then again in that case, the higher judge complained against, had at the time of complaint by Muhammad Kamil, already retired from office.

The difference is that had Justice Shaik Daud made a police report when he was in office as suggested by Rais, the person complained against would likewise be still holding office as his boss.

In the first place, it is bad protocol when one in service to complain and lodge a report against one's boss. Seldom any one does that, whether in judiciary, government, political parties or corporations.

At least in the cases of government, political parties or corporations, when a subordinate complains against the boss, recourse may be made to the courts as independent referee. But when one's boss complained against is himself the head of the courts and the refereeing team, to whom could one turn to for redress? The police and Attorney-General? They too may take instructions ultimately from the very persons responsible for appointing the person complained against in the first place.

So let me be realistic. In such circumstances, not only could Justice Shaik Daud not prove a verbal instruction from higher up, but even had he been able to do so, there was no assurance that any action would be taken, in the absence of which, he would instead be held accountable for judicial impropriety of leveling unproven accusations against his own boss thereby bringing disrepute to the judicial institution.

It is, in a word, a no win boomerang situation!

In these circumstances, it is perfectly understandable why Justice Shaik Daud and Justice Muhammad Kamil chose to speak up only when they were retired or about to retire.

The fact that they complained when they were retired or about to retire does not detract the credibility of what they said because these are persons who held positions as judges with an unimpeachable service record, and certainly no imputation may be made of their appointment as judges being based on anything other than integrity and knowledge of the law.

When one judge complains against another higher up, we don't know what to think. But when two, three, and if, in time to come, more come out from the shadows to disclose the going ons in the corridors of then courts, they will form a solid phalanx of credible witnesses whose common testimony, the public is entitled to hear and believe.

If such disclosures by Justice Shaik Daud and Justice Muhammad Kamil could shed light as to what happened in the past and by so doing, prevent or deter similar improprieties in the future, then what these bold judicial spirits have done in speaking up in retirement is — far from undermining the judiciary — to help begin the healing process of restoring, in stages, public confidence in this institution. They should then be commended and not criticised.