I refer to the Malaysiakini report Clean up the judiciary, Zaid told .

It is a known fact that Malaysians in general have absolutely no faith in the judiciary. Please note the following:

Lack of prudent, intelligent and dedicated judicial officers: The judicial officers across the length and breadth of this country are in want of proper training. It is the cardinal principle of every judicial officer be it Senior Assistant Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Registrars, Magistrates and judges to ensure on a compulsory basis that justice must be provided. They must have a comprehensive understanding of the law. This must be supported by their academic merits of their university education. It makes a mockery to simply pick a candidate just because he or she has a piece of paper with an LLB degree. The candidate must have the speed of understanding the facts of the law as is presented before her by the two opposing lawyers.

This requires sharp mental skills of hearing, understanding and applications of the facts put before her. The bottom line is that strict justice must be done irrespective of who is the person before her. Far too often, the judicial officer would base his/her judgment on who the person is before her. If the plaintiff or the defendant is a rich and famous then her mind is prejudiced to favour him. If the lawyer is the famous name in the newspapers, then the judgment is invariably in his favor.

The junior lawyers are treated with disdain as if he or she is wasting everyone’s time. This is where the judicial officer is wrong. She has to remain neutral all the times irrespective of who is in front of her. She must have the capacity to make a totally neutral stand and listen to all the facts of the case and then make a judicial decision. This should be done irrespective of who the parties are in front of her.

Experience, maturity and wisdom should be the basic criteria for appointments: We do see many of the judicial officers in court as young as 24 to 26 years of age undertaking such huge responsibilities as judicial officers. This is totally wrong. What is the experience of a 24-year-old lawyer to take the role of arbitrating justice? As I often say, many of the judicial officers seem not to know the difference between a needle and a thread. Indeed this is a shameful scenario.

Lack of passion, commitment and zeal: Many of the judicial officers in the courts are seen as ever so tired-looking. They lack the passion, commitment and the zeal towards the profession. Sometimes we see the courts filled with lawyers holding a pile of files. Nevertheless, within half an hour the court is cleared with each asking for postponement for one reason or the other. I have often wondered if the chap occupying the bench is indeed concerned about true justice or is acting as some form of a court clerk. The judicial officer puts on a totally disinterested face or has a lackluster attitude as if she is in a hurry to rush off. There is a need to put a tab on each judicial officer.

Anyone found to be lacking in his or her passion for the job should be removed and sent to another government department where she can do better justice. They should be replaced with more appropriate staff. Let not the judiciary be filled with people who just want an employment with a month end salary. This is dangerous and a tragedy.

Lack of proper judgments: I would suggest that all judicial officers give out a written judgments after delivering their verdict. That written judgment should be supported by facts relevant to the case at hand. It is common for magistrates and registrars to be simply giving out judgments without any due consideration of the law. Many are fond of saying ‘If you are not happy, then you can appeal’. That is besides the point and that is everyone’s right.

The fact of the matter is that appealing causes further pain and agony. Every appeal costs money to the litigant with the ridiculous legal fees being charged by lawyers these days. There are times when a matter is brought before the court which is of extreme urgency. Yet the judicial officer takes it as a pinch of salt as if it is of no concern to him /her and dismisses the case without considering the implications. Such officers should be removed from service. She/he could go back into private practice or be sent out to some other departments but not definitely the judiciary.

Need to check on the judgments issued by every officer: I would suggest that there be a check and balance measure be implemented by the Chief Justice on the performance of each judicial officer. Every time a matter is sent for appeal before a higher court and this higher court finds the judgment issued by the previous officer is wrong in law, then the officer who made the wrong judgment should be graded appropriately and if he/she does not improve then they should be removed from duties and replaced with more competent officers. They cannot be allowed to sit there continuing with their spree of injustice.

Urgent need for speed in the dispensation of justice: It is indeed shocking to find cases filed in courts that never to see the light of the day. There must be a firm commitment by everyone involved in the management of the nation. Speed is an essential component of ensuring justice. I would suggest that there be a maximum time span imposed before a case that is filed in court is placed for hearing. I would suggest that there be a maximum time span of three months only for every case filed in courts after which it must be brought for hearing. In other words every case must be brought to court for hearing within 90 days.

Severe action must be taken against any party that tries to delay the hearing. Further, all cases set for trial must be completed within a maximum period of 90 days and nothing more. As at present it is common to find a case set for trial even 10 years after it has been filed and it is common for cases to be drawn out for months and months, sometimes for years, with no finality. The litigant gets tired of the legal fees paid to lawyers and in the end he is forced to give up once and for all.

There must be a time frame set out for further appeal hearings. This, too, must be set for hearing within 90 days after it has been filed for appeal. If it to be further appealed to the Federal Court, then again it must be completed within another 90 days.

There should be no room for malaise and disinterest and a couldn’t care less attitude. The phrase ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ must be held tight with a barbed wire and no one should be allowed to destroy this wire, not even the Chief Justice.

Unfair legal fees: We all know that lawyers charge fees that does not make any sense to any sane person. At this juncture may I suggest that the government embark on a strict price control system on legal fees chargeable by lawyers. Seeking justice is an inherent right of every citizen but if the legal fees deprive this right from citizens then the government of the day must move in and correct this inherent injustice. Right now it is common to find lawyers collecting large sums of money from clients up front as if the case is going to be completed two weeks down the road. Yet after collecting the large up front fees he still refers to the fees collected at the first instance and calls it ‘peanuts’ and begins to demand for higher fees till the litigant gives up having lost all monies paid to the lawyer.

I call this as inflicting pain and agony on someone who only want justice at the end of the day. Will the government give this immediate attention as too many people are suffering? I have heard of lawyers charging up to half a million ringgit for criminal cases. This is wicked.. Instead of fighting for justice they have struck at the root of injustice itself. Will the government of the day move in and do the needful? They, at least, owe this duty to the rakyat .