The denial of justice, be it for prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or victims of clergy abuse in the Catholic Church, is a global phenomenon but in Malaysia it verges on the ridiculously serious.

Authoritative figures like NH Chan, quoting some of the legal heavyweights of Britain like Lord Denning, and others have repeatedly called for the professional obligations and standards governing the conduct of judges, let alone the attorney and the prosecutors, to be adhered to in order to promote confidence in the judiciary. Alas, our courts appear to be following standards other than professional.

Justice is not only not seen to be done but it is seen to be undone. If and when justice is seen to be done in any court, it is deemed a landmark decision but only to be undone by a higher court. The higher the court the lower the chances of justice being done. This is a well grounded popular perception.

This on-going ‘justice denied’ debate makes one wonder and ponder on the continued relevance of the current judiciary in Malaysia. The lay people cannot but interpret the court happenings as political maneuverings. If the final bastion of appeal is a foregone failure what other recourse is there?

The Federal Court ruled that TNB had the right to construct high voltage cables and the minister advised the residents of Rawang to respect the decision of the Federal Court but the residents defied the order and gathered in protest. Anwar Ibrahim has evidently lost confidence in the courts and has taken his cause to the court of public opinion.

The Perak speaker battles on despite court decisions recently, showing how selective it can be regarding jurisdiction while Aliran called upon the Bar Council to boycott the courts for one day in the month. Yet again, the Court of Appeal has overturned the RM2.5 million award to ISA detainee Abdul Malek by the High Court on the government’s appeal.

Case studies are endless. Will people prefer to settle disputes outside of court? Yes, but it may work as a compromise and may not work in accordance with justice. You beg, plead, cajole, yell, threaten and eventually when push comes to shove, will the people take the law into their own hands? What might appear just for one may be considered unjust for the other. Does justice have two faces?

Who is ‘justified’ when the mob catches a snatch thief and beats him to a pulp? The thief becomes a victim and the mob criminal by consequence. If the thief had a gun and began shooting at the mob that would be self-defense. Can the mob argue its case on ideological grounds as procedural justice for which some of them paid the price? There is no point in this argument when we are outside the courtroom.

The fact that people can defy court orders indicates that they are unwilling to accept them and are prepared to pay a price. This would be a dangerous turn of events just because the people have lost confidence in court judgments. The travesty in our courts is already shaking the country’s stability.

All talk and debate will not bring about a change unless we attempt to do something about it.

To boycott the courts one day in a month may send a message but the judges will merely fix new dates and procrastinate the process while the backlog of pending cases gets worse.

Can we look elsewhere for redress? There is this International Criminal Court seated in The Hague.

Although Malaysia has not ratified it, there is a very slim chance of appeal. The court exercises jurisdiction only on those states that have ratified the ICC statute or have accepted it at least on an ad hoc basis. On both of these, we do not qualify. The third condition is when the UN Security Council refers the situation to the court.

Apart from foreign aggression the court has jurisdiction over the most serious crimes committed by individuals in the form of genocide, crimes against humanity such as murder, extermination, rape, sexual slavery, disappearance of persons and crimes of apartheid etc. Police brutality, deaths in police custody, torture under ISA detention, selective investigation and prosecution and mala fide court judgments can also be equally serious.

Who will handle the injustice of the judicial system? When that fails, there is still the slim opening, provided we can muster very strong arguments, for a referral by the UN Security Council. This is undoubtedly a formidable task with a high risk factor - the hovering ISA sword of Damocles.

To establish a strong case will require brains and courageous people and time. We could solicit the help of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch through the Bar Council and Suhakam to facilitate the process. A long shot, perhaps, but we have much to lose otherwise.

The final option is regime change through the voice of the people and makkal sakti , strength of the people, democratically exercised through the ballot box. Political parties present their election manifestos prior to elections. Even before that the people should present the political parties with a ‘People’s Manifesto’ spelling out what they expect from elected representatives resulting from a free and fair electoral process.

Indeed, another formidable task! If and when we have a new government its primary task should be to sweep the halls of the judiciary, police force and law-enforcing commissions clean. The slate must be wiped clean leaving behind not a speck of dirt. New fresh faces of good, competent and honourable Malaysians should appear for we do have such Malaysians.

Advance justice!