Judge says Bar Council is one-sided
Leong Kar YenPublished: Jan 10, 2001 9:39 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Although the Bar Council claimed that the judiciary has lost its independence, the fact that it has passed resolutions without prior debate or discussion with members of the judiciary showed that it is one-sided, a judge said today.
Justice RK Nathan of the Kuala Lumpur High Court further said that there should be rapport between the bench and the bar.
He was hearing a suit by K Raja Segaran against the Bar Council, its immediate former chairman RR Chelvarajah and the Malaysian Bar with regard to an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) scheduled for Nov 20 last year.
Raja Segaran is seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the council from holding the EGM or any further meetings which constitute contempt of court.
Justice Nathan said that the resolution (to be discussed at the intended EGM) raised grave concerns of the Bar's confidence in the judiciary that implied all members of the judiciary have no independence or competence.
By reading the resolution, justice Nathan said that the Bar Council was alleging that the judiciary, from the lowest magistrates to the Federal Court judges, were guilty of committing serious acts of misconduct. He added that the resolution claimed this on all of the judiciary except for the Bar Council.
"Is it fair to even say this? The judiciary is not to be vilified. The Bar Council is a powerful voice and if it makes a press statement, the people will believe it."
Defence counsel Malek Imtiaz contended that the actions of the Bar Council were correct and justified.
"There are ghosts and demons, and demons in the fringes of the plain imagination. They whisper of sedition and contempt and various other things ... I take a view that by no stretch of imagination that the actions of the Bar, an issue here to be considered, are anything other than correct.
"I would go further and state it as a noble act in the truest spirit of the close link between the bench and the bar," he said.
Malek also rebutted by saying that if the resolutions had been passed without the prior knowledge of the judiciary, then a next logical step would be the setting up of an independent royal commission.
In accordance with the Federal Constitution, the commission though not having enforcement power, would however be able to investigate claims of judicial misconduct and draft a recommendation for action to be taken, he added.
The trial continues on Monday.
Justice RK Nathan of the Kuala Lumpur High Court further said that there should be rapport between the bench and the bar.
He was hearing a suit by K Raja Segaran against the Bar Council, its immediate former chairman RR Chelvarajah and the Malaysian Bar with regard to an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) scheduled for Nov 20 last year.
Raja Segaran is seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the council from holding the EGM or any further meetings which constitute contempt of court.
Justice Nathan said that the resolution (to be discussed at the intended EGM) raised grave concerns of the Bar's confidence in the judiciary that implied all members of the judiciary have no independence or competence.
By reading the resolution, justice Nathan said that the Bar Council was alleging that the judiciary, from the lowest magistrates to the Federal Court judges, were guilty of committing serious acts of misconduct. He added that the resolution claimed this on all of the judiciary except for the Bar Council.
"Is it fair to even say this? The judiciary is not to be vilified. The Bar Council is a powerful voice and if it makes a press statement, the people will believe it."
Defence counsel Malek Imtiaz contended that the actions of the Bar Council were correct and justified.
"There are ghosts and demons, and demons in the fringes of the plain imagination. They whisper of sedition and contempt and various other things ... I take a view that by no stretch of imagination that the actions of the Bar, an issue here to be considered, are anything other than correct.
"I would go further and state it as a noble act in the truest spirit of the close link between the bench and the bar," he said.
Malek also rebutted by saying that if the resolutions had been passed without the prior knowledge of the judiciary, then a next logical step would be the setting up of an independent royal commission.
In accordance with the Federal Constitution, the commission though not having enforcement power, would however be able to investigate claims of judicial misconduct and draft a recommendation for action to be taken, he added.
The trial continues on Monday.
View Comments0