Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi defends judicial reforms

Malaysia's prime minister has defended a new law aimed at promoting judicial independence even though it gives him the final say in appointing senior judges including the chief justice.
Malaysia's Parliament passed the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill late Wednesday, hours after Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told The Associated Press in an interview that the legislation will rid the country's judiciary of its "negative perception."
The bill is a highlight of Abdullah's reforms program, which he is pushing through before handing over power to his deputy Najib Razak in March. This week Parliament also passed a bill to set up a new anti-corruption agency.
"Since I am retiring earlier than I was planning to do all these things have to be done very quickly," Abdullah said in the interview, adding that the drive against corruption and creating "a judiciary of integrity" were the cornerstones of his election campaign in 2004.
"If that can be fulfilled that's good enough. It doesn't matter whether you do it in a hurry or not," he said.The reputation of Malaysia's judiciary has suffered from a series of scandals including a secretly taped video showing a lawyer allegedly brokering the appointment of senior judge in a telephone conversation with someone who was later appointed the chief justice.
At present the prime minister appoints the judges at his discretion without the need to justify his choice or consult others. The recent appointment of a former ruling party lawyer as the chief justice has also triggered opposition criticism about the independence of the judiciary.
The Judicial Appointments Commission calls for setting up a nine-member panel of judicial and nonjudicial persons who would recommend to the prime minister a set of names for the job of senior judges.
However, the prime minister has the prerogative to reject the recommendations and ask for fresh names until he picks one that he thinks is a suitable candidate.
Abdullah said the judicial commission will lend "more transparency" to the system, insisting that no prime minister would misuse his power.
"I am sure the prime minister will not do anything that will ultimately put him in bad light. His reputation will be at stake," he said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/18/asia/AS-Malaysia-Judicial-Independence.php

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill clears Dewan Rakyat

JAC cruises through Dewan Rakyat

by Sharon Tan & Chan Kok Leong ( The Edge )

KUALA LUMPUR: The prime minister’s reform agenda has now passed the halfway mark after his second bill, on Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), cleared Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
But unlike the earlier Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill, JAC got through despite protests from opposition parliamentarians.
For what was initially thought of as an effort to liberalise or subject the appointment of judges to a separate commission, JAC is no more than an act of making the process more transparent.
Also absent was a widely expected block voting, as Barisan Nasional MPs outnumbered the Pakatan Rakyat representatives.
During the second reading, Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar had accepted the louder voice of BN representatives, although Wee Choo Keong (Wangsa Maju-PKR) asked for block voting.
Wan Junaidi brushed him aside, pointing out that Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had said it was not necessary. The third reading was passed 20 minutes later under Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin’s watch. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was present throughout the winding-up session and watched as the bill was passed.
During the winding-up debate, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz dismissed claims of too much power being placed under the prime minister by repeatedly saying that it was never the intention of JAC to curtail his prerogative.
“This law is meant to make the process of appointing judges more transparent,” Nazri said. “It has never been the intention of this act to take away the prerogative of the prime minister to appoint judges, given to him under the Federal Constitution.”
He also assured Parliament that the prime minister would not abuse his discretion and ignore all the suggestions forwarded to him.
“If he (the prime minister) does that, he will look very bad in the eyes of the public.”
He was replying to questions from Mahfuz Omar (Pokok Sena-PAS) and Yusmadi Yusoff (Balik Pulau-PKR) on the absolute power given to him under Clause 37 of the JAC which empowers the PM to make orders for purposes of removing any difficulties.
The government, said Nazri, also disagreed with assertions by Karpal Singh (Bukit Gelugor-DAP) and Lim Kit Siang (Ipoh Timur-DAP) that JAC contradicts Articles 122(B) and 161 (E) of the Federal Constitution.
According to Karpal, JAC contradicts Article 122 (B) of the Federal Constitution and questioned if the King would still be consulted in the process of appointing judges.
Wee also raised the issue of JAC being against Article 161 (E) which states that the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak have to be consulted before the chief justice of Sabah and Sarawak is picked.
But Nazri explained that the process of consultation with the King and the chief ministers was already being practised since 1963 via written correspondence.
“JAC merely spells out the selection and vetting process of judges. This does not mean that we will ignore their voices and they will still be consulted before any appointment is done,” said Nazri.
Nazri rejected Anwar’s suggestion that the Federal Constitution be amended to address these issues. Despite the Permatang Pauh MP giving his assurance that Pakatan Rakyat MPs would support constitution amendments to put JAC in line with it, the minister said the government could not trust the opposition.
“Since election, the opposition has being trying to lure our MPs and take over the government. How can we trust you?” he added. Anwar and the opposition bench had stood up to assure Abdullah that he would have their support if he amends the Federal Constitution to vest constitutional powers with JAC.
During the debate on JAC earlier in the day, Anwar had also raised the issue of the appointment commission being given the status under the Federal constitution like the Election Committee.
“We worry because the power is in the PM. Hence the law cannot be held by the discretion of one person but must be anchored in law,” he said, suggesting that there should be instead a tenure for the commission so that they could work without intimidation from the executive.
Meanwhile, Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (Batu Pahat-BN) warned the government to be careful in the appointment of the eminent persons.
“The Prime Minister has the power to remove them without reasons and that must be explained. Will the removal without having to give reasons give rise to speculations that there is no transparency?
“When they are removed, it must be explained to the people,” he said, adding that the meaning of eminent persons should be defined.
On the same subject, Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau-BN) asked how the government would guarantee that the four eminent persons appointed to the Commission would be truly independent and have no ties to the judiciary and corporate world.
He also questioned the consultation with Bar Council in the appointment of the eminent persons.
“Will the Bar Council be asked to discuss?” asked Khairy, who also wanted to know whether the Commission would tender a superficial or in-depth report on its recommendations.
Khairy also injected fresh air into the debate when he asked the government to restore the powers of the judges by amending Article 121 of the Federal Constitution to its pre-1988 status.
Prior to the amendment in 1988, Article 121(1) vested the “judicial power” of the federation in the courts. This was understood to mean that the superior courts had an “inherent power” to be the final arbiter on questions of law, to enforce rights and duties and to stand between the citizen and the state.
However, the law now says that the High Courts “shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

http://www.theedgedaily.com/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_4811c1c1-cb73c03a-53897400-92f86415

The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) poses problems in appointment of Chief Justice and President of the Appeals Court

Judicial Appointments Commission can lead to problems: ex CJ

PUTRAJAYA: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), the Bill of which was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, will lead to problems where the appointments of the Chief Justice and president of the Appeals Court is concerned, said newly-retired Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad.
He said problems would arise as among members of the commission would be those in line for the two posts.
"I just want to draw the attention of the Members of Parliament (MPs) in raising this so that they will give it careful thought before making their decision," he told Bernama Thursday.
"Under the provisions of the Bill, the JAC is empowered to appoint the Chief Justice (CJ), Appeals Court president, Appeals Court judges, Federal Court judges, Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and High Court judges.
"It is also noted the JAC comprises of nine members including five senior judges, four of whom are the most senior in the country.
He also referred to Clause 5 of the Bill which provided for the JAC to be made up of nine members comprising the CJ as the chairman, Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, a Federal Court judge and four eminent persons appointed by the Prime Minister.
According to Clause 21 of the bill, the JAC is entrusted with the responsibility to select suitable and capable candidates as judges of the higher courts.
Candidate must meet several criteria including being persons of high moral values and integrity asides judicial capability.
In the interview, Abdul Hamid said according to the provisions of the Bill, appointments for judicial commissioners, High Court judges, Appeals Court judges, Federal Court judges, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak should not pose a problem, but it need not be the case where the CJ and Appeals Court president are concerned.
"In making the choice for Appeals Court president, the Chief Judge of Malaya, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak and the Federal Court judge, who are members of the JAC, have a stake in the matter. This means they will have to abstain from participating in the proceedings.
"And as the Bill states that a minimum quorum of seven members must be met in making these appointments, it might be very difficult to meet this requirement.
"It becomes more complicated when it comes to appointing the CJ. The Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak have a stake in the matter and as such, they will have to abstain in the selection process.
Again the minimum seven persons quorum requirement cannot be met," said Abdul Hamid, who retired in October.
Should the CJ be unable to be present when the selection meeting is held, he said the meeting would have to be carried out without him, the Appeals Court president, Chief Judge of Malaya and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak.
"This will have two consequences, first the quorum cannot be attained. Secondly it means for appointments at the lower rungs, there will be a full quorum including the four senior most judges but when it comes to the top judge, these four senior judges will not be able to partake in the meeting.
"It also means when it comes to appointing the CJ, the meeting will only be attended by a federal court judge and four nonjudges who are appointed by the Prime Minister.
"Is this the real purpose of the Bill? I am just bringing it up so that the MPs can ponder about it," he stressed.
Asked about his view on the setting up of the JAC, Abdul Hamid declined to comment saying it was a policy matter that came under the purview of Parliament.
The JAC was mooted to reform the Judiciary for greater transparency and integrity in the administration of justice. - Bernama

This Bill has sparked much debate. Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan President Malaysian Bar provides a wonderful analysis of the said Bill at http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/letters_others/bar_council_s_comments_on_the_judicial_appointments_commission_bill_2008.html

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill sparks debate amongst MPs

Parliament: JAC debate continues unabated
By ZULKIFLI ABD RAHMAN and LOH FOON FONG

KUALA LUMPUR: The debate on the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill 2008 brought forth opposite viewpoints from Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat MPs.
The Barisan side supported the Government’s move to improve the judiciary’s independence and integrity, but Pakatan MPs wanted the Bill revoked, saying that the Prime Minister wielded too much power in the appointments of judges.
“The formation of the JAC is the right move to bring confidence into the independence of Malaysia’s judiciary, in line with international standards of judicial systems,” Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) said.
In urging the House to approve the JAC Bill, Khairy said the process of selection and elevation of judges would be transparent to all. “The bill should be supported because the Commission is a reflection of the country’s respect of democratic society. “It also ties the Prime Minister to a duty to ensure that continuous freedom of the judiciary is maintained and defended,” he said in debating the Bill. Khairy suggested that former distinguished lawyers and legal stakeholders be appointed to the Commission as its members. “The members should also be free of pressure from lobbyists or corporate influence,” he added.
Add a clause
Datuk Wilfred Bumburing (BN-Tuaran) said the country’s courts would be able to carry out their responsibilities freely and not be hindered by “unnecessary outside interference.”
He suggested that a clause be added to the Bill to include an advisory that the Prime Minister would confer with the state governments of Sabah and Sarawak in the appointments of judges.
“This is to ensure that capable judges from the two states have equal opportunity to be elevated to higher posts,” he added.
Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) feared that the JAC would be become a toothless tiger when it comes into force next year.
“The existence of the JAC itself does not adhere to the requirements of the Constitution, which means that at any time in the future, its decisions can be challenged in court,” he said.
Constitution amendments
Lim said the Government should look into the bigger picture of finding out the root causes of failure in the judiciary’s integrity and independence. “There is also no attempt to return Article 121(1)(a) of the Constitution to its original form in the Bill to ensure there’s separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. “We shouldn’t forget the judicial crisis of 1988, which brought scandal to Malaysia’s image,” he added. He called for the Bill to be referred to a parliamentary select committee first to allow Parliament to investigate the causes of the loss of confidence in the judiciary.
Khalid Abd Samad (PAS-Shah Alam) said the Bill would not settle the problem of executive interference in the judiciary. He cited the fact that the Prime Minister is featured prominently in the Bill, which showed his pivotal role in the judiciary’s make-up. The Prime Minister must support the freedom of the judiciary otherwise the Bill’s purpose would fail, he added.
“If the present or future Prime Minister is tainted by scandal, that will affect his capability to ensure the judiciary’s independence is maintained. “The Bill states that it’s a pivotal requirement that the Prime Minister must defend the independence of the judiciary. “I hope (if something like the) the 1988 judicial crisis recurs, Barisan MPs will join us in moving a motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister because he had failed to protect the judiciary’s independence,” Khalid added.
Government’s responsibility
The appointment of judges is the Government’s job and is not tantamount to interference, Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi (BN-Batu Pahat) said. It is considered interference only when there are orders to overturn a judge’s decision and cause it to be partial to certain parties, he said.
“The question is whether there is a monitoring system to ensure that judges make impartial judgements,” he said, adding that interference could come from the Government, corporations, relatives or individuals. The judges themselves must be competent, he said during the JAC Bill debate after the second reading.
PM’s powers
Puad quipped that lawyers would be the first to enter Hell because they “defended the wrong as right.”
Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim interjected and said that it was judges and not lawyers, which caused some to snigger.
Puad said that further clarification needed to be made on the issue raised by Anwar on the fact that the Prime Minister can revoke the appoinment of “eminent persons” to the Commission without needing to give any reason, as stated in Section 9 (2). He said that this power to revoke would not help in the cause of improving public perception of the transparency of the judiciary.
“This is dangerous. The public needs to be told why they are dropped; this would boost confidence in the Bill,” he said. Puad said that he agreed with Wee Choo Keong (PKR-Wangsa Maju) who said on Tuesday that there should be a clearer definition of “eminent persons” as stated in Clause 51 (F), to ensure that the right candidate was appointed. He also said that the Government should also look into the conflict that was created between the Bill and the appointment of the Borneo Chief Justice because the Chief Ministers in Sabah and Sarawak have the right to appoint or sack their own judiciary heads.
In this case, the proposed new provision that gives the Prime Minister the power to decide, with the recommendations of the JAC, runs contrary to the provision in Article 161E (b) of the Federal Constitution.
Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) pointed out that there was no guidelines in the JAC Bill on who could be appointed and who should be promoted. He also asked if there were guidelines on actions that could be taken against judges who committed offences outside of the Bill.
“Are there actions possible against a judge, for instance, who makes sexist remarks against women lawyers?” he said. Karpal said that since the Bill was in conflict with Article 122B of the Constitution, the DAP will not support it. “In principle, we accept that what is in the Bill is good, but whether it can be accepted is a separate matter,” he said.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/17/nation/20081217163646&sec=nation

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill introduced

2008/12/11
PM has power to sack JAC member

By : V. Vasudevan ( NST Online )


KUALA LUMPUR: The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), when formed, will recommend names for the appointment and promotion of judges to the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court.
It will also be involved in the appointments of the chief justice of the Federal Court, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Malaya and the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, and the appointment of judicial commissioners.However, the final say on all appointments remains with the prime minister who will advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the appointments.The 23-page Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008, which will pave the way for the commission to be set up, was tabled by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday.The bill outlines the functions and powers of the JAC and its composition.
The commission will consist of the chief justice of the Federal Court, who shall be its chairman, the president of the Court of Appeal, the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, chief judge of Malaya, a Federal Court judge to be appointed by the prime minister; and four eminent people who are not members of the executive or other public service.The Bar Council of Malaysia, Sabah Law Association, the Advocates Association of Sarawak, the attorney-general, the attorney-general of a state legal service or any other relevant body, will be consulted on the appointment of the four eminent members.

Their term of office is for two years and they cannot serve more than two terms.The commission is required to submit an annual report to Parliament on all its activities. Apart from nominating judges, the commission is empowered to review and recommend programmes to improve the administration of justice and forward other recommendations to the prime minister.The appointment of any JAC member may at any time be revoked by the prime minister without assigning any reason. The members can also tender their resignations at any time with a written notice to the prime minister.The appointment of any commission member may also be revoked, among other grounds, when the member is convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, moral turpitude, corruption or any other offence punishable with imprisonment of more than two years. The JAC members are obliged to disclose their relationship with any of the candidates under consideration.The bill defined these relationships as spouse, former spouse, sibling, uncle, aunt, cousin, sibling to spouse or former spouse and their uncle, aunt and cousin.The commission members are also required to disclose their connection with any candidate, which among others include their nominee, partner, former partner, spouse of a partner or former partner, a person practising in a firm linked to the commission member and a trustee of a trust under which the commission member or their family is a beneficiary.The bill outlined penalties if any of the members failed to disclose their interest in the candidate.Members who failed to disclose any connection are liable to a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or imprisonment up to two years, or both.The commission will meet when there is a request and it is required to select at least three people for each vacancy in the High Court, or at least two people for each vacancy in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.In selecting the candidates, the commission will have to take into account the candidates' "integrity, competency, experience, objectivity, impartiality, fair and good moral character, decisiveness, ability to make timely judgments and good legal writing skills, industriousness and ability to manage cases well, physical and mental health".The bill states that any serving judge or judicial commissioner will not be considered for any appointment if they have three or more pending judgments or unwritten grounds that are overdue by 60 days or more.Once it had made its selection, the commission shall submit to the prime minister a report which will name the candidates and the reasons for selection. Should the prime minister be unhappy with any of the recommended candidates, he can ask for two more names to be added for his consideration.The prime minister will be required to tender his advice to the king on the candidate as stipulated under Article 122B of the Federal Constitution.
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thursday/National/2425246/Article/index_html

Nine Years on Death Row because grounds of judgment not written

MALAYSIA-DEATH PENALTY: Nine Years on Death Row, Denied Appeal

By Baradan Kuppusamy

"Hang me or release me but don’t leave me to suffer a slow death," is the cry of anguish from Baha Jambol, 45, who has been suspended helplessly here on death-row for nine long years, unable to appeal a death sentence. Jambol’s desperate predicament is not unique. It is caused by a serious flaw in Malaysian criminal justice system. Jambol was sentenced to death in April 1998 for being in possession of 50 kg of cannabis. He is unable to appeal because the trial judge has failed to put pen to paper and give the grounds sentencing him to ‘death by hanging’. "Without a written judgement we can’t appeal," Karpal Singh, Jambol’s lawyer and prominent human rights campaigner, told IPS. Jambol, a driver, was at the wheel of a car when cannabis was found inside. But the car owner, who was with him at the time, was acquitted. The scandal of the ink-shy judge, loath to put his judgements on paper, has shocked the nation and led to renewed demands for a swift end to the death penalty. "This case is a severe travesty of justice," said Singh. "Jambol has been languishing on death row for nine years… what can be crueller than this? I urge the government to immediately abolish the death penalty and end the misery of people on death row." Like Jambol, dozens of others wait in great misery in the country’s overcrowded jails unable to appeal their death sentences because trial judges have skipped their duty of spelling out their judgements on paper. Aziz Sharif, 28, was sentenced to death in 2001 for murdering his girlfriend, a conviction that his lawyer Harbahjan Singh says is deeply flawed. Six years on, Singh is still blocked from filing an appeal because there is no written judgement. Aziz is suffering severe mental torture while waiting to know his fate, his family, poor rice farmers from the southern state of Negri Sembilan, told the newspaper The New Straits Times earlier this month. They have appealed to the court numerous times to get the judge to write his judgment but without success. "I wrote five letters to the court over the matter and sadly they did not have the decency to reply to any of the letters," Singh told the paper. The same predicament is currently being endured by Haszaidi Hasan, also sentenced to death for drug trafficking in 2001. Opposition politicians and rights activists are now pressing for action against Malaysia’s indolent judges. "Their lackadaisical attitude has hamstrung the administration of justice to people who need it the most," opposition lawmaker Kulasegaran Murugesan told IPS. "If the judges had done their basic duties the convicted persons could have speedily filed their appeals and probably been acquitted. A long delay is a mark of a poor criminal justice system," he said, urging the government to set free death-row inmates caught in such a tragic predicament. He added: "A more lasting and more humane solution is to abolish the death penalty." The cases have also been taken up by the rights organisation Malaysians Against the Death Penalty. "Prisoners facing capital punishment are under severe pressure if their appeals are delayed," Charles Hector, the organisation’s co-director and lawyer, told IPS. "Judges should understand the tremendous pressure the death penalty generates… delaying their right to appeal is an act of utmost cruelty. Family members are also left emotionally drained by the uncertainties and the long meaningless delays. It is an intolerable form of torture."

Hector added: "This tragic delay is another reason to review the death penalty. We demand an immediate moratorium on all executions pending the abolition of the death penalty in Malaysia." Amnesty International has also expressed shock at the long inordinate delays and the resulting mental torture death row inmates suffer. There should be an immediate moratorium on all further executions, the organisation agrees.

The Malaysian Bar Association has taken up the scandal, calling on all the country’s lawyers to report back cases where clients are enduring a "slow death" because of long-delayed or non-existent written judgements. The association plans to present Malaysia’s Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Halim with a list of serious cases. The hope is the offending judges will be penalised, a sanction that might finally end the torment of many dozens like Jambol and Aziz left dangling on death-row. Malaysia imposes the death penalty for a raft of offences, from drug trafficking (15 grams of heroin and 200 grams of cannabis) to poisoning the water supply. Mandatory death penalties are also given for murder, possession of firearms, treason. Over a thousand persons have been executed since independence in 1957 and some 300 are currently awaiting execution on death row, many of them Acehnese from Indonesia convicted of trafficking cannabis.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39018

Chief Justice Zaki reveals two judges suspected to be corrupt

KUCHING: Two retired judges were suspected to be corrupt, Chief Justice Tan Sri Zaki Azmi said yesterday.
"God helped me because when I came (into the judiciary), they were gone. No, I didn't dismiss them, they retired," he said at a convention on "Integrity, the Catalyst for Sustainable Development" here.He said he knew the two judges personally.On the judges still serving the judiciary, he said there were "one or two" who were not doing their work."We are going to take the necessary action against them because as I have said, 'You leave and don't stay'."
Zaki said those who are hardworking will be rewarded. He also wanted the judges to write shorter and simpler judgments to reduce the backlog of cases."One judge at the Commercial Court Division wrote 500 judgments within two years. How was it that this judge could, but the others could not?" Zaki spoke at length on corruption and how to improve integrity and efficiency.He said the judiciary was an extremely important branch of the government because the public looked at it as the final bastion. "If they fail in the executive, the ministries and Parliament, they will come to the court."The court must be there to defend the individuals, but if the court itself is corrupt, or inefficient, how could the people rely on the court?" Zaki said the way to beat corruption was to have a good, efficient and fast delivery system. Citing the issuance of passports as an example, he said the weeks it took to process applications made it tempting for those in a hurry to offer bribes. Now it takes only two hours or "one fine morning" for a person to get his passport."There is no need for any corruption to take place. There is no money to be made by a person issuing the passport. So, efficiency is the answer."

On how he improved efficiency in the court administration, Zaki said after he was appointed president of the Court of Appeal last year, the first thing he did was visit the registry."The registry was in a mess with 13 clerks looking after 13 piles of records of appeals. "If you want a record of appeal, it takes time because you have to go to the clerk and the clerk has to go through the bundles of documents. "With the total support of the Court of Appeal staff, they managed to reorganise the records of appeals. So now, the records of appeals at the Court of Appeals are retrievable within two or three minutes, not two or three hours or two or three days."With that, any correspondences received by the Court of Appeal are immediately attended to and should be replied within 24 hours of receiving them because the files are retrieved immediately." He said the move stopped corruption because there was no longer a need to bribe the clerk to look for the file.

Zaki had also introduced a simpler procedure by getting the lawyers to fill a form when requesting for files, instead of writing lengthy letters.When the forms reached him, Zaki said it would only take him two minutes to read them and reach a decision on the request. Zaki said he was proud of his staff for this success at the Court of Appeal. The chief justice said to ensure efficiency, immediate punishment must be meted out against errant staff. "(Once) when I was in court, presiding over a case, I turned my back and no one was there, and they (court orderlies) were chatting outside the room. "The first thing I did afterwards was to call the registrar to issue a show-cause letter to them," he said."The show-cause letter had the desired effects because two days later, all the orderlies of the Court of Appeal behaved themselves."
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Frontpage/2396402/Article/index_html

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang criticises the appointment of Tan Sri Zaki Azmi as Chief Justice.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang has urged his fellow colleagues in the Opposition coalition to invoke Article 127 of the Federal Constitution to debate in Parliament the appointment of Tan Sri Zaki Azmi as Chief Justice. Such a substantive motion has never been presented in Parliament before. In order to do so, he needs the support of 55 Members of Parliament, or just a quarter of the 222 lawmakers.
"Is Zaki capable of providing the necessary judicial leadership to ensure that Malaysia can rise above the past two decades of judicial darkness, plunging from one judicial scandal and crisis of confidence to another, and which reduced the Malaysian judiciary from its previous high international standing into a laughing stock for lack of independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary?" he queried. The veteran leader called Zaki's appointment "the last nail in the coffin of Abdullah's pledge of judicial reform" in a press statement today.
Lim said that Datuk Seri Abdullah had reaffirmed his promise to deliver judicial reforms before his retirement as prime minister in March 2009, which includes the appointment of the top judge. "The Prime Minister has shown utter disregard and contempt for the widespread objections of the legal community and civil society to the appointment of the first Umno Chief Justice in the 51-year history of the nation," he said. The Ipoh Timur MP has been a vocal critic against Zaki's appointment to the Federal Court, as the latter was for many years the legal counsel for Umno and had also served on the party's Disciplinary Committee.
Lim had even raised the matter in the Dewan Rakyat last Wednesday before the appointment was confirmed yesterday evening. He had proposed High Court judge Hishammuddin Yunus, claiming that the latter's promotion in place of Zaki, would be "a credit to Malaysia".

Federal Court Justice Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi appointed as head of the judiciary.

The new Chief Justice will be Federal Court Justice Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi. According to sources, the Conference of Rulers, which met this week, had agreed to Zaki’s appointment as head of the judiciary.Malaysia's nine hereditary rulers consented to Mr Zaki's appointment yesterday. Current Chief Justice Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamed, who was given a six-month extension in April, retires on Saturday.
Sources said that Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff would move up the judicial ladder to the number two position of Court of Appeal President, replacing Zaki. It is understood that Federal Court Justice Arifin Zakaria would be elevated to Chief Judge of Malaya, the third highest position, but it could not be confirmed. Arifin is currently the most senior of the remaining Federal Court judges (See list at www.kehakiman.gov.my).
Under Article 122B (1) of the Federal Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Judges “shall be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, after consulting the Conference of Rulers”.

Zaki, 63, who is currently President of the Court of Appeal, made history on Sept 5 last year when he was appointed directly to the Federal Court from the legal profession. He was appointed a judge in the country's apex court without going through the lower rungs. He rose to the No.2 position two months later. His fast rise through the judicial system had sparked protests from the opposition, which raised the matter in Parliament last year. At that time, then-parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang had described it as a prelude to Mr Zaki becoming 'Umno's chief justice'.
However, since then, lawyers and judges have conceded that Mr Zaki has taken pains to avoid hearing cases linked to the government, and has become known for good judicial temperament.

Zaki served, among others, as the Abandoned Housing Project Scheme and National Sports Council adviser during his private practice. He also served in Umno as disciplinary (technical) committee chairman, selection committee secretary, and was a member of the party’s disciplinary board appeal panel. Before his appointment to the Federal Court last year, Zaki had resigned from all his corporate directorships and memberships but his former connection to Umno has been raised numerous times by some groups who worry about his impartiality. A petition was submitted to the King on Sept 15 requesting Zaki not be elevated as Chief Justice.

Mr Zaki obtained his Barrister-at-Law from Lincoln's Inn and was called to the Bar in England in 1969. He served in the Malaysian government before going into private practice in 1985.
He was also a senior consultant for Kuala Lumpur-based law firm Shahrizat Rashid & Lee.

adapted from :

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/17/nation/2299576&sec=nation

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/SE+Asia/Story/STIStory_291546.html