The recent statement by de facto law minister Mohd Nazri Aziz that members of the Bar Council will not be appointed to the royal commission to investigate the video on the alleged fixing of judicial appointments is indeed surprising.

Under the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, the prerogative to appoint members of a royal commission vests with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. It is arguable that, in the context of a constitutional monarchy, the king would have to consult the prime minister. What is indefensible, however is for an ordinary minister to preempt the decision of the king by declaring, in advance to the media, those disentitled to be appointed. Nazri's statement smacks on arrogance and sheer disrespect to the king and to the prime minister.

As expected, his justifies his stand based on inaccuracies. One would have thought that Nazri would exercise restrain after his infamous claim that whistle blowers would be protected under the non-existent Witness Protection Act. Now he claims that the Bar Council has marched against the judiciary.

It is important for the public to be made aware that it was not just the members of the Bar Council who marched in Putrajaya, but over 2,000 members of the Malaysian Bar. It is shocking that Nazri, a qualified lawyer himself, is unable to distinguish between the Bar Council, whose 36 members form the governing body of the Bar and the Malaysian Bar which comprises almost 13,000 lawyers.

More importantly, however, no one ever marched against the judiciary. The march in Putrajaya was a walk for justice. Contrary to what Nazri implies, the Malaysian Bar has always advocated the strengthening of the judiciary and has always been at the forefront of defending the judiciary whenever the it has come under unwarranted attack. The role of the Bar in the 1988 judicial crisis is a case in point.

Despite claiming in a recent interview that he would not want to see the events of 1988 repeated, Nazri has been steadfast in defending the government's position in leaving the issue closed. One can be sure that credible judges, of which there are many, would have greater confidence in the Bar defending the integrity of the institution than any politician. After all, it is not unreasonable to assume that anyone coming under an unwarranted attack would be desirous in having an advocate of international repute.

The inclusion of members of the Bar (whether sitting on the council, or not) on the proposed royal commission will be of great benefit to the workings of the said commission. One can be sure that the king and the prime minister will give adequate consideration to the potential contribution by the Bar irrespective of how dismissive the minister is.