Bar explains why it 'rejected' Salleh
Beh Lih YiPublished: Oct 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Updated: Oct 24, 2008 11:54 AM
The Bar Council said today that it has not violated ex-lord president Salleh Abas’ rights in rejecting the former judiciary No 1's application to be a consultant of a local law firm.
The Bar Council said today that it has not violated ex-lord president Salleh Abas’ rights in rejecting the former judiciary No 1's application to be a consultant of a local law firm.
“We wish to highlight that Tun Salleh as a practising lawyer enjoys the same rights and privileges without differentiation whether as a consultant or a partner.
“In connection therewith, there is no issue of any adverse consequence on one’s right to livelihood,” Bar Council secretary Lim Chee Wee said in a one-page statement this evening.
Lim said the council, the legal professional body representing some 13,000 lawyers in the country, was bound by the rule and therefore it had to reject Salleh’s application on that ground.
Less than 10 years practice
Under Rule 60 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules, a consultant for a legal firm needs at least 20 years of active practice as lawyer, or 20 years of experience comprising 10 years as lawyer and service as a judge or a member of the judicial services.
“Unfortunately, Tun Salleh does not qualify under the present Rule 60 because he has been in active practice at the Malaysian Bar for less than 10 years.
“Tun Salleh will qualify to be a consultant under Rule 60 on March 24, 2009,” said Lim in the statement, adding the Bar Council is proposing to liberalise the concerned rule further.
The Bar Council secretary also explained that the waiver of the requirements, empowered under Rule 62, “cannot be applied to specific individual lawyer”.
Under Rule 62, the Bar Council may waive any of these rules with the written approval from the attorney-general.
The plight of the former lord president, known as the chief justice now, was first highlighted by blogger Ahirudin Attan in his blog, Rocky’s Bru yesterday. The blogger is also writing Salleh’s memoir at present.
According to Rocky’s Bru, Salleh’s firm has put in an application to the Bar Council in Feb 27, 2006 to allow him to rejoin a law firm that the latter founded.
The law firm, known as Salleh Abas, Yaacob & Sofiah, was established in 1993, five years after he was sacked from the judiciary No 1 post in the 1988 judicial crisis.
The former chief justice however left practice two years later.
Among other arguments that Salleh’s application seeking to be a consultant including former court of appeal judge KC Vohrah was allowed to be a consultant for another firm despite being ineligible under Rule 60.
There were some correspondences among Salleh’s firm, the Bar Council and the Attorney-General’s Chambers later over the matter but Salleh was eventually told that his application was not approved due to Rule 60.
Spoken against the injustice
The blogger criticised the council for its alleged ‘double-standard’ in handling Salleh and Vohrah’s application.
“The Bar had no qualms about using the lord president’s name and person to champion its cause, but was not willing to help him in a matter that it has discretion to,” said Ahirudin in the posting.
Responding on this, Lim said in the statement that the Bar Council has always spoken against the injustice caused by the 1988 judicial crisis.
Salleh, along with five other judges, were affected during the 1988 judicial crisis.
In 1988, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had convened a special tribunal to try Salleh on charges of misconduct and for questioning constitutional amendments that seriously eroded the powers of the judiciary. Salleh was subsequently sacked.
Supreme court judges George Seah and Wan Suleiman Pawanteh - who had ruled that the tribunal was convened unconstitutionally - were also sacked after being found guilty of misconduct by another tribunal.
Three other judges - Azmi Kamaruddin, Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh - were suspended.
Some have described the dismissal of the top judges from the supreme court - then the highest court, now renamed the federal court - as Malaysia’s darkest hours in its judicial history.
In a gesture of goodwill, the government paid an undisclosed sum of ex-gratia payment to these judges in April this year but said the payments were in no way an apology.
“We wish to highlight that Tun Salleh as a practising lawyer enjoys the same rights and privileges without differentiation whether as a consultant or a partner.
“In connection therewith, there is no issue of any adverse consequence on one’s right to livelihood,” Bar Council secretary Lim Chee Wee said in a one-page statement this evening.
Lim said the council, the legal professional body representing some 13,000 lawyers in the country, was bound by the rule and therefore it had to reject Salleh’s application on that ground.Less than 10 years practice
Under Rule 60 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules, a consultant for a legal firm needs at least 20 years of active practice as lawyer, or 20 years of experience comprising 10 years as lawyer and service as a judge or a member of the judicial services.
“Unfortunately, Tun Salleh does not qualify under the present Rule 60 because he has been in active practice at the Malaysian Bar for less than 10 years.
“Tun Salleh will qualify to be a consultant under Rule 60 on March 24, 2009,” said Lim in the statement, adding the Bar Council is proposing to liberalise the concerned rule further.
The Bar Council secretary also explained that the waiver of the requirements, empowered under Rule 62, “cannot be applied to specific individual lawyer”.
Under Rule 62, the Bar Council may waive any of these rules with the written approval from the attorney-general.
The plight of the former lord president, known as the chief justice now, was first highlighted by blogger Ahirudin Attan in his blog, Rocky’s Bru yesterday. The blogger is also writing Salleh’s memoir at present.
According to Rocky’s Bru, Salleh’s firm has put in an application to the Bar Council in Feb 27, 2006 to allow him to rejoin a law firm that the latter founded.
The law firm, known as Salleh Abas, Yaacob & Sofiah, was established in 1993, five years after he was sacked from the judiciary No 1 post in the 1988 judicial crisis.
The former chief justice however left practice two years later.
Among other arguments that Salleh’s application seeking to be a consultant including former court of appeal judge KC Vohrah was allowed to be a consultant for another firm despite being ineligible under Rule 60.
There were some correspondences among Salleh’s firm, the Bar Council and the Attorney-General’s Chambers later over the matter but Salleh was eventually told that his application was not approved due to Rule 60.
Spoken against the injustice
The blogger criticised the council for its alleged ‘double-standard’ in handling Salleh and Vohrah’s application.
“The Bar had no qualms about using the lord president’s name and person to champion its cause, but was not willing to help him in a matter that it has discretion to,” said Ahirudin in the posting.
Responding on this, Lim said in the statement that the Bar Council has always spoken against the injustice caused by the 1988 judicial crisis.Salleh, along with five other judges, were affected during the 1988 judicial crisis.
In 1988, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had convened a special tribunal to try Salleh on charges of misconduct and for questioning constitutional amendments that seriously eroded the powers of the judiciary. Salleh was subsequently sacked.
Supreme court judges George Seah and Wan Suleiman Pawanteh - who had ruled that the tribunal was convened unconstitutionally - were also sacked after being found guilty of misconduct by another tribunal.
Three other judges - Azmi Kamaruddin, Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Wan Hamzah Mohd Salleh - were suspended.
Some have described the dismissal of the top judges from the supreme court - then the highest court, now renamed the federal court - as Malaysia’s darkest hours in its judicial history.
In a gesture of goodwill, the government paid an undisclosed sum of ex-gratia payment to these judges in April this year but said the payments were in no way an apology.
View Comments0