Judiciary: What lies ahead

It is without doubt that the judiciary crisis of 1988 had created tectonic shifts that future generations have been entrusted to resolve.

However, both social activism and political will of revolutionary proportions are needed to bring the judiciary back to its former glory and independence.

In the final installation of our special report on the judiciary crisis' 20th anniversary, Malaysiakini briefly charts the tumultuous journey of the past 20 years.

In 1996, High Court judge Syed Ahmad Idid wrote a poison-pen letter with serious allegations including abuse of power, corruption, misconduct and immorality against 12 judges.

But the police and Anti-Corruption Agency found the allegations to be "wholly untrue and baseless", clearing the senior judges including former Chief Justice Eusoff Chin of any corruption and impropriety.

Syed Ahmad was subsequently asked to resign.

While under Eusoff's stewardship, the judiciary heard a series of controversial defamation cases handled by lawyer VK Lingam, who acted for Berjaya group tycoon Vincent Tan.

Tan had brought a suit against veteran journalist MGG Pillai heard by High Court judge Moktar Sidin, who found in Tan's favour and awarded a record sum of RM10 million in damages.

Pillai appealed to the Federal Court and was heard by a three-member panel led by Eusoff, who upheld the findings but reduced the quantum of damages to RM2 million.

Lingam also filed three other defamation suits seeking a total of RM190 million against lawyers, journalists and several others over an article entitled ‘Malaysian Justice on Trial', published in the British-based International Commercial Litigation (ICL) magazine.

The article featured in the magazine's November issue suggested that Lingam and Tan had connections with judges, singling out the controversial Ayer Molek case and Tan's suit against Pillai.

Photos giveaway

It was not until 1998 when photos of Lingam and Chin holidaying in New Zealand with their respective families surfaced on the Internet that questions were asked as to the extent of their closeness.

At that time, former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim was put on trial for sodomy and corruption. The judiciary too was put on trial.

From the conduct of then High Court judge Augustine Paul, who denied bail, disallowed foreign observers and expunged crucial evidence, the prosecution's amendment of charges, the inconsistent testimonials by witnesses, the way defence lawyers were threatened with contempt charges, it was clear the entire legal system was under fire.

Before the new millennium set in, the judiciary was dealt yet another blow when Malaysiakini published the reports prepared by private eye Bowman Investigations proving that Eusoff and Lingam flew together with their families to New Zealand in 1994.

Copies of Eusoff's itinerary and Lingam's air ticket counterfoils, which Bowman's team of investigators said they obtained, show that both took the same flights to and from Singapore, and within New Zealand.

Earlier on, Eusoff had explained that they bumped into each other in New Zealand and he was merely obliging Lingam's request to have photos taken together. The embattled chief justice retired in 2000.

Secretly filmed video

It was not until last year when the judiciary got its biggest break. A secretly filmed video of Lingam brokering appointments with former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in December 2001 was revealed.

It had also implicated in the conversation were Tan, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and then minister in the PM's Department Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor.

After public outcry, pressure from the opposition and a walk by the Malaysian Bar in Putrajaya, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called for a royal commission of inquiry into the tape.

Proceedings in the royal commission started in January this year. More cans of worms were opened, exposing the rot in the judiciary to be much deeper and more complex than anyone had imagined.

Three months after the hearings ended, the royal commission in their report recommended that six prominent individuals be investigated and that a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) be set up.

With renewed zest to prove himself after Barisan Nasional's drubbing in the March polls, Abdullah appointed lawyer and politician Zaid Ibrahim as the minister in charge of legal affairs.

Zaid - seen as reformist by many - first called for an open apology to those judges victimised in 1988 but this was not well-received by the Cabinet.

The setting up of the JAC also hit a brick wall as ministers disagreed on passing power into the hands of the commission.

The six judges at the heart of the 1988 crisis were eventually given an undisclosed ex-gratia payment. While appreciated by the judges and their families who felt that the gesture vindicated them, others called move a ‘bribe'.

Nonetheless, judges are constantly scrutinised and all eyes will be on who will succeed the current CJ Abdul Hamid Mohamad who will retire in October.

He is likely to be replaced by President of the Court of Appeal Zaki Azmi - a controversial former Umno disciplinary board member and lawyer - who leapfrogged past the High Court and the Court of Appeal into the Federal Court last year.

However, the judiciary is about more than just the judges and the 13,500 lawyers in the country. It is also about individuals seeking redress for their grievances.

Dual system

Due to the dual legal system in the country provided in the Federal Constitution, civil courts have jurisdiction over all individuals while the Syariah courts have jurisdiction over matters of state Islamic laws involving Muslims.

As such, there are many grey and overlapping areas that surround the growing number of Muslim conversion cases involving spouses, death (burial rites) and apostasy. This has caused much frustration to the courts as well as to the families of the affected parties.

By no means do we claim that this is an exhaustive summary. There are other problems including backlog of cases, the lack security of tenure of judges and more.

The second round of sodomy charges faced by Anwar are now in the spotlight and the judiciary cannot hope to escape as easily from criticisms this time.

Most healthy democracies follow the rule of separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature.

In Malaysia's case, the judiciary - having taken huge body blows over the past two decades - is now the least independent and the weakest of the three institutions.

It is hoped that when retold, the sacrifices of the six valiant judges will strike a chord in the Malaysian conscience and to those who may have forgotten, let them remember that there is still a lot that has to be done to save the judiciary.

The 1988 crisis will forever be a part of Malaysian history - let the lessons of the past remind us to never repeat them again.

Watch a 10-min video of interviews on the crisis

SPECIAL REPORT: '88 judiciary crisis revisited