Wanted: A CJ who can act without fear or favour

Zaid Ibrahim, a former law minister, says over the last two decades the Chief Justices were found to be wanting and acted as a judicial spokesperson for the government.

PETALING JAYA: The nation needs a Chief Justice who can act without fear or favour and is not a judicial spokesman for the ruling government.

That is the opinion of People’s Welfare Party (Kita) president Zaid Ibrahim, who was also a former law minister. It is time for a good lawyer to be appointed as the nation’s Chief Justice (CJ), Zaid said in his blog.

In the past two decades, Zaid said, there were many instances where those who held the esteemed position acted merely as administrators and judicial spokesmen for the ruling government.

“And it was difficult to understand many case decisions written by judges, who never understood law in the first place. These people brought shame to our judiciary and our nation,” said Zaid.

The current CJ, Zaki Azmi, will retire come Sept 12. It is said that the incumbent Chief Judge of Malaya, Ariffin Zakaria would succeed Zaki as the Court of Appeal President Alauddin Mohd Sheriff retired on Aug 5.

Zaid said a CJ should be someone true to his consience and believe in the rule of law.

“He should also understand the law and is not ashamed to ask questions when in doubt. A CJ should not be afraid to decide on cases in accordance with law, regardless of the consequences to himself,” said Zaid, once the owner of the largest legal firm in the country.

Praising Ariffin, Zaid said he was a good lawyer and is known to be humble enough to understand the importance of dispensing justice.

“I hope Ariffin will bring integrity, decency and independence to the bench once again. High positions can change many of us, but I hope Ariffin will not succumb to it,” he said.

On the retiring CJ, Zaid said Zaki was more suited to work as an Umno lawyer or an executive to a conglomerate linked to the ruling party.

Wasted opportunity

He cited an example involving the husband of S Shamala who arbitrarily decided to covert their children to Islam, leaving Shamala with no choice but to seek legal redress on the matter.

“When the Court of Appeal referred several important constitutional points of law for determination, Zaki denied them the answers. Instead, he told the lawyer that the questions posed to the court were political,” said Zaid.

He added that the Court of Appeal had sought some answers pertaining to the position of several Syariah Court Enactments, whether was it constitutional for Shamala’s husband to convert a minor.

“And the questions are clearly legal in nature which are also of great importance. The ramifications may be political, but it is not the CJ’s job to manage political fallout,” said Zaid.

Shamala and her husband, Dr M Jeyaganesh had been in legal battle since 2002 when Jeyaganesh arbitrarily converted their two children to Islam.

While Shamala had won the custody of her children in 2004, the High Court then had warned her not to feed her children pork and they were considered as Muslims.

In November last year, a five-men bench at the Federal Court, led by Zaki allowed a preliminary objection raised by Jeyaganesh, saying Shamala had fled to Australia after being granted custody of her children.

Zaki’s decision was condemned by many quarters saying the apex court had thrown out a rare opportunity to answer the long-standing issue of unilateral conversion of children by a parent.