I refer to the report It's a 'no go' for Cherie Blair and the letter Local lawyers can learn from QC.

I certainly think Malaysian lawyers (judges included; judges being lawyers too, working from the bench) can learn a thing or two from QCs. In fact, I am dead sure, Malaysian lawyers, particularly judges, can learn heaps by having QCs come into our courts from time to time.

First, we must recognise that the courts are very open systems of justice and justice is a very universal commodity, subject to the laws of the land. This is why in progressive democracies such as the European Union, the courts subject themselves to the opinions of other very independent tribunals. This is good for each country in the EU as a check and balance on the standards that the judiciary upholds.

Secondly, no court is an island, really. In quite a few matters, particularly in international law and conflict of laws between jurisdictions, our courts will be subject to the decisions of international courts like the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Besides, we regularly open our courts to the opinions of courts of other jurisdictions, particularly those from the Commonwealth too. This allows for the cross-fertilisation of ideas and arguments to promote the needs of justice. It happens all the time. Judges read reports from important courts all over the world. Of course, I'd like to believe our current crop of Malaysian judges still keep themselves updated too.

Now comes my point on Cherie Blair. Barring any express law that forbids a QC from acting in our country (which may be there as a matter of policy and not intended as an impediment to justice), I should say our Federal Court has fallen short of a very fundamental principle of justice. It is notorious that justice must be seen to be done and plainly so.

The arguments heard for denying Blair were only, and I repeat, only those that said she did not have any 'special' expertise or experience that would entitle her appearance. Therein the argument fails the test that "the law was the golden metwand and measure to try the causes of the subjects" which Lord Coke CJ propounded in 1607 and which remains true today.

Cherie Blair is not on trial, the parties in the case - Metramac and Fawziah Holdings are. A fundamental tenet of justice is that every party must have free access to the court and free choice of their counsel. Why should it be otherwise? Barring any expressed legislative impediment (which was not reported) and whether it is mandatory or merely directory, it must fall on our good judges to advance the cause of justice rather than slavishly adhere to rules that awkwardly hinder rather than promote the ends of justice.

To say that Blair has distinguished credentials but not those 'specific' to this case is a laughable excuse to deny the parties their free choice of counsel to represent them. To say that she doesn't have the 'requisite' expertise is most unfair. She may not have argued enough of such cases in court but that is different as saying that she does not have the expertise, remembering that the legal profession, if you wish to make a comparison, is actually a GP profession. GP as in general practitioner. Any lawyer, no matter how lowly qualified, from a recognised college or university and duly registered, is entitled to appear in the courts, even the Federal Court. So what is this fiction about Blair not having the 'requisite' expertise. This is an unfortunate lie and a bad fairy tale.

It is different in medicine where a general surgeon would not attempt a heart transplant. That is understandable. But since when have we asked any lawyer whether they passed Contract law or sat for the paper on Equity, or this or that paper. We have never asked our judges whether they got general degrees or First Class honours and from which university before they adjudicate on an issue do we?

We must recognise that a QC has got his or her silk not in a bazaar but through years of agonising experience in and out of court and has learnt to handle situations and facts and laws that are novel just like any judge. The decision of our Federal Court, if seen in this light, must surely be less than erudite. One must remember the courts do not have the monopoly of wisdom or justice either; they are only administrators and enforcers and interpreters.

I will tell you one good reason why perhaps Fawziah Holdings chose to use the services of Blair. Lawyers commonly tell stories of how they have been browbeaten in the courts because judges lord over them imperiously. It seems simple enough to understand, even though unspoken, that one reason why parties sometimes use heavyweight names to appear in court on their behalf is because they want their cases to be 'heard' rather than 'brushed aside' or made short shrift of by the impatience of judges who would suffer not 'fools' to rise and speak.

Any lawyer worth his salt will know that there is such a thing as the 'inarticulate major premise' [first expounded by Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935), the eminent US jurist] whose most famous maxim is that "the life of the law is has not been logic, it has been in experience". In view of this (and we could go on at great length about this), it is so very, very important that the courts must be subject also to some form of checks and balances. One of these checks and balances, I venture to say, is that the courts should allow a QC to appear if their client so desires.

There is no fear that all Malaysian litigants will rush tomorrow to employ a QC. Only a rare few can afford Blair's fees. If, once in a while, we can get a star lawyer and, hopefully, a scintillating wit, such as was found in David Marshall or one Denning-like, wouldn't that prop our judiciary up as well and propel them to do even better? As it is, you should read some of the judgments our judges write! Of course, that is another subject altogether. If we have to be world-class, let's not leave out our judiciary too. Cross-fertilisation brings about hybrid vigour. Q.E.D.