Malaysian Bar may meet to discuss injunction issue
Celine Tan and Yoon Szu-MaePublished: May 14, 2001 7:25 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
The Bar Council may call a meeting of the Malaysian Bar to discuss matters pertaining to the lawsuit which the Bar is party to.
The Bar Council may call a meeting of the Malaysian Bar to discuss matters pertaining to the lawsuit which the Bar is party to.
Bar Council president Sulaiman Abdullah told malaysiakini today that one of the options facing the Bar is to hold a meeting with all the members, since "we will have to face the membership sooner or later, it might as well be soon".
Sulaiman was reacting to yesterday's decision by High Court judge Dr R.K. Nathan to grant an injunction preventing the Bar from convening the emergency general meeting scheduled for today.
The meeting was to have discussed a proposed resolution calling for the establishment of a tribunal or royal commission of enquiry to look into allegations against Chief Justice Eusoff Chin.
Lawyer K. Raja Segaran had, on Monday, filed a suit against the Malaysian Bar and 11 Bar Council members seeking a declaration from the court that the meeting as well as a circular issued to council members and notice informing lawyers of the EGM is ultra-vires the Legal Profession Act, contemptuous and seditious.
He sought the injunction to prevent the EGM from taking place.
When asked whether the council will appeal against the decision, Sulaiman said that it is a matter for the members of the Bar to decide.
"We will have to go back to the membership to see what needs to be done, and do it another way if necessary," he said.
Sulaiman added that a general meeting is particularly needed since the council has been heavily criticised on how they handled the issue.
"The judgment was very critical of us. In a sense it is a vote of no-confidence, through the law and the courts, to the body in charge of the Malaysian Bar, namely the Bar Council," said Sulaiman.
A number of lawyers have also expressed dissatisfaction on the way the Bar Council had handled the matter.
A lawyer, who wishes to remain annonymous, told malaysiakini yesterday that the council should have had a "Plan B" in case of an unfavourable judgment against them.
"The Bar has had a history of being injuncted so many lawyers are wondering why the council did not think of an alternative plan in case this worse case scenario happened," said the lawyer.
"Lawyers from Penang and other places in Malaysia are calling up wondering if any meeting would take place and there has been no word."
The lawyer added that even though a meeting to discuss the issues contained in the proposed resolution is disallowed by the court, the Bar could still hold a meeting to discuss the lawsuit to whom they are all parties to.
"It is the prerogative of parties to a lawsuit to meet and discuss the case and in this situation, the Malaysian Bar is cited as the first defendant so, in effect all the 9,000 lawyers in Malaysia are parties to the suit."
On the issue of how the judgment affects the issue of free speech and assembly, Sulaiman explained that Nathan's decision to allow the injunction was not to stop the Bar and the public from discussing their views, but was in objection to the manner in which the council pursued the issue.
"The judge was really careful in answering defense counsel Ambiga Sreenevasan. As you recalled, he said 'No, I am not blocking discussion, but if you do it the right way, I would allow you to discuss the issue'," Sulaiman clarified.
Bar Council president Sulaiman Abdullah told malaysiakini today that one of the options facing the Bar is to hold a meeting with all the members, since "we will have to face the membership sooner or later, it might as well be soon".
Sulaiman was reacting to yesterday's decision by High Court judge Dr R.K. Nathan to grant an injunction preventing the Bar from convening the emergency general meeting scheduled for today.
The meeting was to have discussed a proposed resolution calling for the establishment of a tribunal or royal commission of enquiry to look into allegations against Chief Justice Eusoff Chin.
Lawyer K. Raja Segaran had, on Monday, filed a suit against the Malaysian Bar and 11 Bar Council members seeking a declaration from the court that the meeting as well as a circular issued to council members and notice informing lawyers of the EGM is ultra-vires the Legal Profession Act, contemptuous and seditious.
He sought the injunction to prevent the EGM from taking place.
When asked whether the council will appeal against the decision, Sulaiman said that it is a matter for the members of the Bar to decide.
"We will have to go back to the membership to see what needs to be done, and do it another way if necessary," he said.
Sulaiman added that a general meeting is particularly needed since the council has been heavily criticised on how they handled the issue.
"The judgment was very critical of us. In a sense it is a vote of no-confidence, through the law and the courts, to the body in charge of the Malaysian Bar, namely the Bar Council," said Sulaiman.
A number of lawyers have also expressed dissatisfaction on the way the Bar Council had handled the matter.
A lawyer, who wishes to remain annonymous, told malaysiakini yesterday that the council should have had a "Plan B" in case of an unfavourable judgment against them.
"The Bar has had a history of being injuncted so many lawyers are wondering why the council did not think of an alternative plan in case this worse case scenario happened," said the lawyer.
"Lawyers from Penang and other places in Malaysia are calling up wondering if any meeting would take place and there has been no word."
The lawyer added that even though a meeting to discuss the issues contained in the proposed resolution is disallowed by the court, the Bar could still hold a meeting to discuss the lawsuit to whom they are all parties to.
"It is the prerogative of parties to a lawsuit to meet and discuss the case and in this situation, the Malaysian Bar is cited as the first defendant so, in effect all the 9,000 lawyers in Malaysia are parties to the suit."
On the issue of how the judgment affects the issue of free speech and assembly, Sulaiman explained that Nathan's decision to allow the injunction was not to stop the Bar and the public from discussing their views, but was in objection to the manner in which the council pursued the issue.
"The judge was really careful in answering defense counsel Ambiga Sreenevasan. As you recalled, he said 'No, I am not blocking discussion, but if you do it the right way, I would allow you to discuss the issue'," Sulaiman clarified.
View Comments0