I read with interest the statement by Dr Rais Yatim concerning High Court judge Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus' views about the ISA last week in granting the writ of habeas corpus to Abdul Ghani Haroon and N Gobalakrishnan.

Frankly, had the remarks come from his predecessor, a former student leader and one of the co-sponsors of the now defunct Barisan Bertindak Melayu whose legal knowledge is suspect, then personally I would think even reading it is a pure waste of time and downright insulting.

However when such a statement came from the de facto law minister who is legally qualified with a doctorate in law and whose article [#1] Detention without trial: Has the time come for abolition?[/#] caused a stir some years back, then I would think it is worth responding to.

The minister's view, which reflects the government's view, seems to equate the judges' role to just an arbitrator of what is wrong or right in adjudicating a case before him/her.

I would even say it can be regarded as contemptuous and violates the sacrosanct and the independence of the judiciary as it tends to tell judges to toe the line and totally disregard the wide inherent powers of the judiciary as provided under the Constitution.

As Lord Denning, one of the most respected and revered judges in the world and whose dissenting views and judgments now are accepted and being applied, said:

"My root belief is that the proper role of a judge is to do justice between the parties before him. If there is any rule of law that impairs the doing of justice, then it is the province of the judge to do all he legitimately can to avoid that rule - or even to change it - so as to do justice in the instant case before him.

"He need not wait for the legislature to intervene: Because that can never be of any help in the instant case."

Need I say more?

Compare this with an excerpt of our minister's own article when he was 'vigorously championing' the people's rights:

"The ISA's repeal is voiced purely on account of being concerned with adjudicated fairness in determining a person's wrongdoing. If there is any law that categorically shuts the courts, it is the ISA and its other kindred legislations. It is feared, not so much for its hazardous interrogations and ensuing confinement conditions, but rather for the individual 's helplessness in knowing that he cannot assert his basics to defend and maintain his innocence in a court of law.

Well, YB Dr Rais, I would think that your 'voice' of 13 years ago is now being reflected in the judgment of the Shah Alam High Court. You should be proud that the 'seeds' you planted years ago are now flowering nicely.

Let us just see whether we get a full bountiful harvest when the three wise men - or is it the five wise persons - at the Federal Court hears the appeal of the very 'much relevant' judgment of Mr Augustine Paul.