The build-up to the Malaysian Bar's 59th annual general assembly tomorrow - held to replace the one last March which was declared unlawful - has seen anger over council office-bearers' decision not to hold the meet sooner.

The pros and cons as to whether the decision to wait up to the last minute to hold the meeting is being vigorously debated among members on the Bar's official website.

A senior lawyer from Kuala Lumpur, T Kuhan is among those who believe that the new AGM should have been held immediately after the ill-fated meeting was ruled illegal by the High Court.

"The call for a fresh AGM after the High Court decision was to avoid the dire consequences of delaying decisions affecting the Bar as decisions would eventually become invalidated which was what happened after the Federal Court decision. Now everything is in a state of limbo," he told malaysiakini.

He claimed the debacle depicted the lack of responsibility and leadership among the now illegal office-bearers who are seeking to have their appointments ratified at tomorrow's AGM.

"They had decided to apply for a stay of execution and appealed immediately after the High Court's ruling without holding a proper council meeting. On top of that, they have completely ignored warnings and advice made by senior and respected members of the Bar," he said.

'Irresponsible conduct'

Among the advice he referred to was a letter dated July 21 by former Bar Council president Raja Aziz Addruse, representing seven other past presidents, asking for a fresh AGM to be convened without delay soon after the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court ruling.

Raja Aziz said the decision to delay holding a fresh AGM was "highly unsatisfactory as the very right of the current office-bearers to be in office and their authority to make decisions on behalf of the Bar Council and of the Malaysian bar, are being questioned".

The council's infamous court saga arising from the quorum requirement started when senior lawyer Edward Van Buerle filed motion with the High Court and successfully obtained a declaration that the March meet was 'null and void'.

The lawyer - who was among many senior members of the Bar who walked out from that meet in protest - also obtained a declaration that the election of the Bar Council members and all resolutions and decisions passed by them were 'unlawful'

Kuhan added that looking at "such irresponsible conduct" of the invalidated office-bearers, he was not surprised that former Bar Council chairperson Param Cumaraswamy had called on them not to seek re-election at tomorrow's meeting.

"Param wrote an open letter to members describing the current situation as appalling and undignified. It may be a bit too strong but his points have merits and I don't think many can deny them," he said.

In a letter dated Oct 10, Param had said that the invalidated office-bearers "must examine their own conscience now and declare to the general body that in accordance with principles of accountability and responsibility they will not seek re-election to hold any office in the Bar Council in the future".

Not retrospective

Kuhan said while the letter resulted in a barrage of responses defending the decision to re-convene the AGM only after all avenues of appeal had been exhausted, he stressed that these did not represent the majority.

"At least I don't think so. Even the members of the council are divided on the issue [...] I think it's just that those who disagree are not as aggressive as those who agree," he said.

Former Bar Council president RR Chelvarajah said he also noted how strongly some members had defended the decision made by the invalidated office bearers to the extent of accusing senior members of the Bar of double standards.

"They claimed that those who disagreed with the decision to hold the ill-fated AGM without quorum as practising some sort of double standard since we had not objected to previous meetings that had no quorum," he said.

He said those AGMs that was held without quorum in the past were actually "adjourned AGMs continuing after a quorum was not secured in the first instance".

He also pointed out that the latest court's ruling had held that the March 19, 2005 meeting was unlawful and the ruling cannot be applied retrospectively.

"You cannot take an order and apply it to all the meetings that we had held in the past 27 years. That cannot be right."

As to the call for the invalidated office-bearers not to seek re-election, Chelvarajah said it was up to the relevant office-bearers themselves whether to heed the call or not.

"I think it should be left to their conscience. If they feel that they can do this sort of act and believe that it will not affect the members of the Bar, then there's nothing we can do."

"But if they want to take responsibility for the mess, then so be it. What is important is that they should realise that they have made a mistake and move on."

Close ranks

Former Bar secretary Ambiga Sreenevasan - who was elected vice-president at the ill-fated meeting last March- said there is nothing to stop members from raising the issue tomorrow.

"It will definitely be discussed by members if someone raises the issue. There's nothing to stop them from doing it. In any case, there will be a fresh election for office-bearers tomorrow."

Lawyer Yusmadi Yusoff was of the view that it was unnecessary to punish the invalidated office-bearers and believes that their election should be ratified tomorrow.

"I believe that they made the decision (to delay the holding of the new AGM) as an attempt to benefit the Bar as a whole. It was ambitious and it came with risks but that does not mean that it was wrong and inappropriate," said the six-year legal practitioner.

He felt that members should heed the call by former council chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari for lawyers to close ranks and attend tomorrow's meeting.

"We should move forward. What's done in the past should be used to put us back in the right track and nothing else. Let tomorrow's meeting be a fresh start for the Bar."

While all the above views may give an inkling of how heated the Bar Council's AGM tomorrow will be, members may just have to settle for small talk outside the venue if the quorum of 2,398 lawyers is not met.

But Ambiga said she was confident that the quorum would be secured stating that lawyers form outside Kuala Lumpur and Selangor have made transport arrangements to attend the meeting tomorrow.

"Members in Penang, Melaka and a few other states have hired buses to ferry them here. I think it looks positive. I believe the meeting will proceed tomorrow."