The Bar Council is duty-bound to mind the judiciary's business, regardless of Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah's wish for non-interference as to his prerogative in resolving the recent open confrontation between two judges.

On Tuesday, Dzaiddin had chided the council's purported interference when delivering a speech at a judges' swearing-in ceremony, asking it to "refrain from treading in matters which are the prerogative of the chief justice, and from making any partisan call to initiate action".

However, the council remained steadfast in calling for a tribunal to be set up because the move was within its statutory duty to "assist the public in matters relating to law and the administration of justice".

In reiterating the council's stand, chairperson Mah Weng Kwai (photo) said since the independence of the judiciary was very much a part of the administration of justice, the council was "clearly obliged to uphold the same" as the representative body of the Malaysian Bar.

"It cannot remain silent or do otherwise," he said in a statement today, three days after the chief justice ticked off the legal profession for asking him to set up a tribunal.

"In addition, the independence of the judiciary, seen as fundamental to the proper administration of justice, is not the right or privilege of judges but the right of all citizens," said Mah.

The only other time a tribunal was set up was in 1988 when then Lord President Salleh Abas was removed for judicial misconduct.

'No halfway measure'

Two weeks ago, the judiciary was plunged into one of its worst crises of confidence when High Court judge R K Nathan sparked a controversy by incorporating his criticism of appellate judge Gopal Sri Ram within a written judgment in an unrelated case.

Mah queried Dzaiddin's dismissal of all possibilities of setting up a tribunal, despite having come to an apparent conclusion that Justice Nathan has in fact acted improperly.

"There is no halfway or alternative measure under the Federal Constitution on how to address the issue of judicial misconduct. It is for a tribunal, and a tribunal only, to decide what to do," he said.

The Bar Council said that apart from being duty-bound, it was exercising its inalienable right under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution to express its views.

"It must be remembered that, while being clearly an issue of public concern, the current debacle within the judiciary was thrust into the public domain, not by the council, but by a member of the judiciary itself," noted Mah.

During the same function, Dzaiddin had also expressed grave concern and chastised judges for making unwarranted personal remarks against their peers, saying that the dignity and respectability of the judiciary should be protected.

Consistent stand

In any event, said Mah, the council's stand was not unprecedented.

"It is consistent with (our) past actions in defending the independence of the judiciary, as evidenced by its integrity and courage in calling for the removal of (then Lord President) Tun Hamid Omar over the case concerning Tun Salleh Abas in 1988," he said.

"The council also called for action to be taken against the former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin for impropriety arising from his holiday saga with a lawyer. These actions have been endorsed by international administrations of justice."

Reiterating the council's stand that public confidence has been eroded and undermined by Nathan's conduct, Mah is pressing for action to be taken as "an expression of its allegiance to the cause of justice and fairness, uninfluenced by personalities".

Citing Nathan's remark that "a response will come swift and fast" each time a personal attack is made in future by a judge upon another, the Bar Council said it can be interpreted as a "direct threat to the independence of the Court of Appeal".