It is disappointing to hear that the government will not review the sacking of three Supreme Court judges which took place in 1988. What amazes me is that the one who initiated the disgraceful act of sacking those judges, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mahathir has admitted that he told then Lord President Salleh Abas 'to go' on the basis of 'to prevent any scandal'.
The admission made by Mahathir should be looked as a 'new fact' as it reveals the intention behind the constitution of the tribunal and going by the maxim of which 'equity looks into intention rather than form', we can conclude that the tribunal was used by the former prime minister to accomplish his intention of which he claimed as 'to prevent scandal' rather than that the Lord President himself had misbehaved.
Another amazing fact is that Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz had recently pointed out that the five incidents mentioned by Tun Salleh Abbas as being new facts have no merit as it took place before the tribunal was formed.
I recall what Salleh had said in that the fifth incident was his first audience with Sultan of Johor, the concerned Yang Dipertuan Agong, after his (Salleh's) dismissal when he acted as advisor to the Malay Rulers when the government wanted to curb the immunity of the Rulers.
Salleh said that His Highness regretted for what had happened to Tun Salleh and realised that he (His Highness) had been 'made use of'.
To include this incident as one before the tribunal was formed is an unforgivable error and as such, the contention made by Nazri shall not survive. The minister ought to properly read the reasons put forward by Tun Salleh before making any comment and avoid causing humiliation against the minister himself.
I must agree with Tun Salleh when he said the minister had made his decision impromptu or in haste, and again he has done the same mistake when responding to the reasons put forward by the former Lord President.
Besides the aforementioned mistake, the minister has confined the meaning of "new facts emerging" to only what he believes in and that is if any of the five judges of the tribunal admits that he was told to remove Tun Salleh.
To put it in Tan Sri Azmi's words, it is not millions ringgit of compensation that is being demanded, nor the reinstatement of those judges back to their position as they are too old for that. What is demanded is restoration of the judges's honour and hopefully with that, the Bench will regain public confidence and appear to be more independent and transparent compared to what it is today. Public confidence is the only strength and force that the court has in discharging its duty to uphold the law and to do justice without fear and favour.
I quote the words of Lord Hewart in Rex v Sussex Justices, where the learned law lord observed that: 'A long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should undoubtedly and manifestly be seen to be done'.
What happened in 1988 in Malaysia had shown that justice was not seen to be done and it is doubtful whether justice was done in the first place. And I believe that everyone who indulges themselves in legal world, be it lawyers or judges or law lecturers or law undergraduates like me, and even those who are not in the legal community, are eager to see the judiciary to be restored to its proper place as it was before the 1988 judicial crisis.