In criticising the leadership of the former Bar President Sulaiman Abdullah ([#1] Sulaiman out, Mah is new Bar chief [/#], March 17), Mah Weng Kwai shows astonishing effrontery. The ousting of Sulaiman is a severe blow to all members of the Bar concerned with the rule of law and the bleak human rights situation in the country. It is laughable to imply, as Mah has done, that the Council under Sulaiman has not "responded to issues of public concern without constraint".

To those lawyers who have taken an activist role in addressing issues of human rights and social concerns, Sulaiman has given encouragement, assistance and endless inspiration.

Unlike some Council members who mostly just sit in countless important-sounding committees, Sulaiman has led by example. He has played a prominent role, particularly in the turmoil of the past two years, in advancing the cause of freedom and in working towards a more just society. It was under his leadership and upon his initiative that the Bar sent observers out to public assemblies last year to ensure that the authorities respect the public's exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of assembly.

Similarly, he sprang into action when in April last year, a young lawyer was arrested by police while attempting to render assistance to a client who had been arrested. Sulaiman promptly issued a press statement and took the matter up with the deputy IGP. In doing so, he sent a clear message to all lawyers that if ever they ran into trouble whilst carrying out the grave duties of the profession, he would be solidly behind them.

During the hearing of the suit by Rajasegaran against the Bar, he stood firm in the face of contempt of court proceedings against him. Neither did he hesitate to condemn the use of the ISA against members of the Al-Ma'unah organisation in the Sauk case. He was uncompromising in the cause of press freedom and urged the repeal of the Printing Press and Publication Act 1984. These are but a few examples of his conduct during his time in office.

By what stretch of imagination, then, can it be said that Sulaiman did not respond to "issues of public concern without constraints"? It is also stated that Mah had said that members felt that "the Council under Sulaiman's leadership was not responding swiftly to public issues." By what process of divination does Mah arrive at such a conclusion? Not only was there no motion at the AGM to censure Sulaiman for not reacting swiftly to issues, but in fact there was a standing ovation in his honour. Despite this, Mah conjures up the spectacle of a Bar united in its discontent with Sulaiman's leadership of the Bar.

Sulaiman was voted out of office not because the Bar was unhappy with him, but because some disgruntled members of the Bar Council were unhappy with him. The vote ousting him came from the Council and not the general Bar.

On the issue of freedom of religion, those who have been so keenly pursuing it should have taken the trouble to table a motion on it and thus allow the Bar in its general meeting to openly discuss it. Instead, they chose to distribute an open letter on the matter. Why not a motion, which by giving prior notice to all members would have allowed for a proper ventilation of the issue?

Mah also says that the Bar's Human Rights Committee has been critical of Sulaiman's performance. This is rich, considering that the Human Rights Committee's own record on taking effective action on human rights issues can at best be described as slightly better than dismal. It is a well-known fact that it has been the Bar's KL Legal Aid Centre that has been consistently taking effective action in defence of human rights.

Let there be no mistake, the loss of Sulaiman is a severe blow to the cause of justice and freedom. It affects not only members of the Bar , but also the Malaysian public.