Judicial activism was back in the limelight in the courts this year after a long hiatus since the shocking sacking of then Lord President Salleh Abas in what was called the 1988 May Day for Justice .

The revival could be the result of the freshness and innovation brought about by the appointment of Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah as the new chief justice in November last year.

In the words of the former Keadilan deputy president Dr Chandra Muzaffar, judicial activism had remained dormant since independence as a result of the "suffocating dominance" of an overwhelmingly powerful executive.

The signs that this was about to change came in the middle if the year with the outcome of two very significant cases.

Attack on ISA

In the first case, Shah Alam High Court judge Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus shocked everyone by calling for the parliament to review

the relevance of the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA).

Hishamudin made the call in his decision

on May 30 in allowing habeas corpus applications by two Keadilan leaders N Gobalakrishnan and Abdul Ghani Haroon, ordering the police to release them on the grounds that their detentions were unlawful.

The two had been held under the ISA since April 10 for allegedly planning to topple the government via militant means and mass street demonstrations.

The judge's call for the review of the act drew immediate flak from the de facto Law Minister Dr Rais Yatim ( malaysiakini 's Newsmaker of the Year

) who said that judges should not overstep their functions by calling for review of laws.

The minister said that a judge can comment on the law by making suggestions to improve any laws without "going too far". The judges, the minister said, cannot suggest which law needs to be amended.

Hishamudin's ruling was a direct contrast to that on another habeas corpus application by five other reformasi activists detained under the ISA in April.

Justice S Augustine Paul ruled in April 25 that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the arrests and detentions were done in accordance with powers vested in the police through the ISA.

'Mysterious' phone call

Following Hishamudin's landmark ruling, came another revelation from the Kota Kinabalu High Court, sitting as an Election Court, that there was an apparent attempt to influence its decision over the telephone.

On June 8, Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang in his judgment

on the Likas election petition alluded that he received a phone call from his superior in the judiciary asking him to dismiss the case. He, however, did not reveal the identity of the superior.

During that time, there were three people higher in ranking in the judiciary who could have directed Muhammad Kamil - the former chief justice Eusoff Chin, then Court of Appeal president Lamin Yunus and then chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Chong Siew Fai Chong and Lamin retired on July 4 last year and March 12 respectively.

Eusoff subsequently admitted to making the phone call but denied giving any directions on how the case should be decided.

Rais (again - see why he's our Newsmaker?) in July said police have completed their investigations but it was up to the public prosecutor to take further action.

On the ruling itself, Muhammad Kamil quashed the election results on the grounds that there were phantom voters in the electoral roll and that the winning candidate had breached election laws.

Oil and libel spoils

At the civil courts in March, the PAS-led Terengganu state government filed a civil action

against national oil company Petronas and the federal government, demanding for the RM850 million oil royalty payment to be continued immediately.

The state has received RM7.1 billion from Petronas since March 1978 to March 2000. From 1978 to November 1999, the state government was under the control of Umno. The withdrawal of oil royalty payments to Terengganu coincided with PAS' taking over of the state in the 1999 general elections.

In February, journalist MGG Pillai filed an application

at the Federal Court to review its previous decision against his appeal over the RM2 million awarded against him in a defamation action brought by businessman Vincent Tan.

The court was told that in the original appeal there had been an appearance of bias as the judge concerned (Eusoff) had been photographed with Tan's counsel (VK Lingam) on a holiday, "so now you are given the opportunity to redress the injustice".

The defence said the case was "exceptional as it could be a landmark case in deciding future mega-defamation suits".