Chief Justice Md Raus Sharif explained today that he decided to deliver the sole speech at the opening of the Legal Year as the Malaysian Bar was insistent on bringing up the issue of tenure extension and appointments involving him and Court of Appeal President Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

Speaking at a press conference, Justice Raus said he had several meetings with the Bar prior to today's event and had told them to not raise the issue in their speech as the Bar already had filed an application (challenging the appointments) in court.

“So it is not proper for them to raise it here. If you speak on the issue, the attorney-general (Mohamed Apandi Ali) may want to respond to it in his speech. I also looked at two pages of a copy of Malaysian Bar president (George Varughese's) speech, in which he raised the issue.

“They (the Bar) are insisting on raising the issue, which is in court. Objections cannot be raised at a public forum like this. Look, this event is organised by the judiciary. Say there is an invitation sent to people in your house, but you criticise the host - it would be unfair right?

“Hence, we decided to change the format this year, because of their (the Bar's) insistence. I told the AG (Apandi) that there would be one speech, only by me,” Justice Raus said.

The CJ said the judiciary and the Bar had several meetings before organising this year's Opening of the Judicial Year, the last being on Dec 19, before Christmas.

In his speech at the Opening of the Judicial Year, Justice Raus said that for the first time this year, instead of the three stakeholders in the practice of law giving their individual speeches, there was a change in format.

“I alone shall be speaking. This is not by choice, but forced by circumstances,” the CJ said in the early part of his speech.

At a Bar Council dinner last night, Varughese (photo) said that the change of format was tantamount to muzzling the Bar.

“This change in format - from three speeches to one speech - diminishes the involvement and role of the Bar in the legal year. Had we taken part, we would be little more than invited guests. This amounts to a muzzling of the Bar and raises the question of whether this change in format is the result of some concern about what the Bar would say,” Varughese said in his speech at the dinner.

'We will see next year'

The CJ told reporters that despite what happened, with the office-bearers of the Malaysian Bar not coming to Judicial Year, his relationship with Varughese was still good.

Asked whether there would be a change next year, with the Malaysian Bar president and AG being allowed to speak, he said, “We will see.”

The extension of the services of Justice Raus and Justice Zulkefli as CJ and president of the COA has been questioned by the legal fraternity as they had passed the mandatory retirement age of 66 years and six months.

Besides the Malaysian Bar having filed the challenge against the appointments of Justice Raus and Justice Zulkefli, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Parti Amanah Negara also mounted a legal challenge.

However, the challenge from Mahathir and Amanah has been struck out. The Malaysian Bar's challenge is to be heard before the Federal Court, based on five questions of law allowed by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, namely:

  • Whether under Article 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution an additional judge can be appointed on the advice of the CJ, with the appointment taking effect after the latter’s retirement;
     
  • Whether under Article 122B(2) of the Federal Constitution the president of the Court of Appeal can be appointed upon the prime minister consulting the chief justice, and if the appointment can take effect after the retirement of the said chief justice;
     
  • Whether under Article 122(1A), read together with Article 122B(1), 122B(2) and Article 125(1) of the Federal Constitution, an additional judge can be appointed as the chief justice or the president of the Court of Appeal;
     
  • Whether the appointments of judges by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Articles 122(1A) and 122(1) of the Federal Constitution is justiciable; and
     
  • Whether the appointment of additional judges and thereafter, of the chief justice and the president of the Court of Appeal being announced while they were serving judges but to take effect after their retirement, violates Article 122(1), 122(1A) and 125(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Besides Justice Raus and Justice Zulkefli, Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Ma'arop and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjun were also present at the Judicial Year opening.