The Bar Council will not hold an extraordinary general meeting for now, opting instead for a public forum to discuss the present decline in the judiciary, which some lawyers have described as worse than the 1988 judicial crisis.

The plan is to invite prominent foreign legal experts to discuss issues affecting the Malaysian judiciary, especially recent developments that are threatening the judiciary's dignity and integrity.

The rationale behind shelving the EGM is to enable a more meaningful discussion first in the form of a public forum, covering broad areas like criminal and administrative laws with recent case studies.

When contacted today, several lawyers who were privy to last Saturday's deliberations said it was not just about jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's case.

"It is about the rule of law which affects every man on the street. An EGM would be a closed-door meeting, which means the public and the media will be left out of the deliberations," a lawyer told malaysiakini today.

"Another reason is that the large number of lawyers, required to make up the quorum, will not be conducive for an indepth discussion of this nature involving the dignity and decorum of the judiciary."

The lawyers said if the profession still wanted a formal resolution after the forum, the EGM will be considered.

"The idea has not been shut out completely," another said.

'Deplorable display'

The most recent judicial fiasco erupted when a High Court judge took to task a Court of Appeal judge last week for allegedly making personal attacks against him when overturning the trial judge's decision.

Following that, Bar Council chairperson Mah Weng Kwai wanted Chief Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah to set up a tribunal against Justice RK Nathan for publicising his personal grouses against appellate judge Gopal Sri Ram's criticism of the trial decision.

Mah said Justice Nathan's "public display of his personal grouses" against Justice Gopal while delivering a judgement, had nothing to do with the case and was "deplorable".

In a widely publicised statement on July 31 concerning a run-of-the-mill motor accident matter, Justice Nathan, who is a High Court Judge in Penang, said he had become the "target for personal vilification" by Justice Gopal.

Justice Nathan's outburst caused a stir in the legal community as it is an established convention that judges of a superior court may give an opinion on a judgment of a lower court judge.

The last few weeks have seen numerous calls by veteran lawyers for an EGM to arrest the continuous decline of public confidence in the judiciary, sparked off by the July 10 Federal Court decision to uphold ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's conviction for corruption.

HL Wrigglesworth, 84, the most senior member of the Bar, even sent a letter to the Bar Council on July 15 claiming it is time to make a firm stand because the state of the judiciary was worse now than in 1988 when then Lord President Salleh Abas was removed.

In a statement issued today, DAP chairperson Lim Kit Siang wanted Dzaiddin to convene a national conference of judges, lawyers and concerned citizens.

"[This is] to reach a national consensus on the institutional reforms in the justice system to fully restore public confidence in a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.

"This is a matter which does not exclusively concern judges and lawyers, but the legitimate concern of civil society as well."

Lim also expressed his disappointment in the Bar Council's failure to "provide the needed leadership in the past 18 months to work with the judiciary under Dzaiddin to put in place fundamental institutional reforms to the justice system.

Unconditional apology

Meanwhile, it is learnt that Mah has offered his "unconditional apology" to the 36-member Council last Saturday for his "personal remarks" over the Federal Court decision on Anwar's appeal.

Mah had initially contradicted the earlier stand by the Bar Council on the same matter in 1999.

Following the barrage of criticisms by lawyers, politicians and civil society groups, Mah made an about-turn six days later to reiterate the Council's original stand, justifying his statement as "personal".

However, several past presidents and senior lawyers later publicly censured him for not consulting the Council first. It is also learnt that he had been asked to extend his unconditional apology to every member of the Bar at the earliest time possible.

Mah became embroiled in the controversy when, in an immediate response to malaysiakini after the much-delayed decision, he had said that the higher courts would have set aside Anwar's conviction if any impropriety had been found in the proceedings of the lower courts.

He also said that he believed Anwar's trial went through the "due process of law", going on to suggest that those who disagreed with the decision should use the ballot box to show their discontent.