Charge N H Chan for contempt or
resign, CJ?
Charge N H Chan for contempt
or resign, CJ?
By Martin Jalleh
The integrity of the judiciary has been badly
mauled by a legal lion who does not mince his words no matter how high or
mighty a judge thinks he is. He has called a spade a spade and certain members
of the judiciary an “incompetent” and even an “idiotic” bunch!
All the Chief Justice (CJ) and the judges in
the Palace of Justice
The respected, renowned and retired Justice N
H Chan is very frustrated, fed-up and furious at how the judiciary which he had
served so faithfully has been reduced to a farce run by those who are legal and
intellectual frauds or what he has called “imposters”!
With each passing compromised judgment N H
Chan unhesitatingly hits out at judges with an increasingly sharper sting. He
leaves no stone unturned, no errant judge uncovered. They can “no longer mask
their hyperbole judgments with unintelligible garbage”.
“Fools on the bench”
In his latest scathing critique, he said the
rakyat is “stunned by the ignorance of our judges of the highest court in the
land”, as seen in the recent Federal Court’s decision not to review Anwar
Ibrahim’s application to review its previous decision dismissing his
application for disclosure of documents for his second sodomy trial.
N H Chan said the Federal Court’s approach to
Rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court 1995 was “inconsistent” and
“dishonest” and “those ignoramuses” were talking “utter nonsense”. Those “inane
judges cannot even understand plain English”! He put it very plainly and
painfully!
Calling the three-member panel of Justice
Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Heliliah Mohd Yusof
“incompetent”, he added “perhaps they were clowns as their statements were
laughable”.
His searing criticism was that they “…do not
know justice from injustice”, and that “such lowly individuals should never be
allowed to sit on the seat of Justice…(and) to be judges at all. And yet there
are so many of them in the judiciary today ever since the rot begun.”
He shredded into smithereens the “judicial
renaissance” of the CJ: “Our country does not need impostors, who pose as
judges, to deceive the common people any longer. The common citizenry can now
uncover the impostors hiding beneath the mantle of the judicature.”
He laid bare the judicial sham: “With judges
such as these in the Malaysian judiciary where, to them, the principles of the
law are not to be consonant with justice to be manipulated by them to uphold
injustice, it is no wonder that the errant judges have forfeited the confidence
of the people. ”
He left them with a stinging slap in the face:
“The general public does not respect such judges anymore! They have put
themselves beyond the pale. Just like pariahs. Don’t you think they should be
despised?”
On High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin
Mohd Diah’s rejection of Anwar’s application to have the judge recuse himself
from further hearing the sodomy trial, N H Chan said that the judge was talking
“utter nonsense” and “knew next to nothing about judicial bias”.
He added that the “moral of this unsavoury
episode” is this: if you appoint mediocre lawyers to the Bench you will get
substandard judges. The solution to this problem is a simple one. Appoint
judges from the cream of the legal profession and you will not find me
assailing the judges for incompetence simply because I will not be able to do
so.”
Such was his cutting conclusion: “It is only
when we have fools on the bench that I can point out that what they have decided
is not the law.”
“Bunch of idiots in high places”
N H Chan had not spared the judges in the
cases related to the Perak constitutional crisis of his very strong language
when scrutinising their decisions (with the exception of Kuala Lumpur High
Court Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim whom he had praised).
He highlighted the “bad” and “perverse”
judgments, especially those in the appellate courts, the collective written
judgements which were “riddled with contradictions” and how the Perak and
Federal Constitutions were toyed with and trampled on by the judges!
During the Perak debacle N H Chan had said
that there are “many of our judges today especially among those judges in the
higher echelon of the judicial hierarchy who do not seem to know the true
meaning of separation of powers in constitutional law. This is most apparent.”
He called some of the judges of the cases of
the Perak imbroglio:
a) Bad judges – they “seem to think that
independence means that they can do what they like”
b) Recalcitrant judges – “they think that
words can mean whatever they want them to mean”
c) Humpty Dumpty judges – “they also think
that they are independent of the legislature”.
N H Chan has brought to light how beholden the
judiciary is to the Umno-dominated Government. He said the “so-called Perak
crisis has brought out a host of cases that showed that the judges gave the
impression that they were one-sided. The perception of the people is that they
sided with the BN government.”
In the “shocking case” of Zambry v Sivakumar
in the Federal Court, he called the judgment by the “infamous five” (judges)
Alauddin Mohd Sheriff , Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Ab Rahman, Augustine Paul
and Ahmad Makinnuddin, a “perverse decision”.
In the case of Nizar vs Zambry he called the
panel of five Federal Court judges made up of the President of the Court of
Appeal Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria, Zulkefli
Ahmad Makinuddin, Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdul Hamid Embong, “myopic judges”.
They “were lost in a quagmire of confused
thinking caused by their own incompetence. They found themselves deep in the
forest unable to see the wood for the trees. Does this mean that we have a
bunch of incompetent judges who sit in the highest court in the land?”
Alas, with the help of N H Chan the public
especially those in Perak were able to see for themselves how members of the
judiciary had left behind a dead constitution, “bad” and “perverse” decisions,
dubious declaratory orders, judgments devoid of reasoned grounds, and
disgraceful double standards.
Blind and Biased Judges
N H Chan has “judged the judges”. He considers
them, especially those in the appellate courts’ “ignorant”, “inane”,
“incompetent” and even “idiots” (which he has strongly inferred).
The public shares his view. In their eyes the
judiciary has allowed itself to be intimidated, its independence and
impartiality interfered with, and its integrity reduced to ignominy.
In the light of the severe criticism of N H
Chan of the judiciary (which is quite unprecedented by a retired judge), surely
the Chief Justice cannot stand idly, silently and stoically by – unless Zaki
Azmi strenuously, staunchly and solemnly agrees with him!
Further if Zaki continues to remain silent the
public will assume that he shares N H Chan's searing criticism of the
judiciary. Logically he would have to resign for he has allowed the reputation
of the judiciary to be sullied irreparably.
The judicial shenanigans whom N H Chan has
criticized and castigated should also resign for having shamelessly sacrificed
justice on the altar of political expediency.
N H Chan’s comments on members of the
judiciary have no doubt been bold, blunt and blistering. He has accused judges
of being blind, biased and being a bunch of “idiots” and “fools”. He has thrown
the gauntlet down.
If the CJ disagrees with N H Chan’s criticisms
he should haul the former Court of Appeal judge into court and demand that the
latter shows cause for why he should not be cited for contempt! Does Zaki have
the guts to take up the gauntlet or will he prefer to allow the judicial circus
to go on?
N H Chan has made no bones about it. His
blitzkrieg on the judiciary will continue. “Bad guys” had better beware! He
will ensure that their names remain in infamy for generations to come unless
they recant the wrongs that they have done! He will even write their obituary
and if they outlive him there will be others who will take his place!
N H Chan sees the next general elections as
the only solution to an unsalvageable judiciary viewed by the public with
greater suspicion, skepticism and even scorn. He once commented: “At the
present time and judging by what we have experienced so far from the Perak
takeover cases, the quality of most of our judges is suspect”.
“In the meantime what should we do with so
many bad apples in the barrel? If only there could be a change in government in
the next general elections with the opposition winning by a landslide. Then we
could get rid of all the bad apples by Act of Parliament.”
10 March 2010
jallehmartin@yahoo.com
