English-language daily The Star today issued an apology to former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah for its article which raised questions over the former judge's appointment as consultant to a Kuala Lumpur-based law firm.

In its apology, The Star retracted all statements and allegations made in the disputed article.

"It has been pointed out to us that certain statements and allegations in the said report are completely untrue ... and we desire to express our regret to Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin bin Hj Abdullah.

"We here by withdraw those statements and allegations and unreservedly apologise to [Mohamed Dzaiddin] for any embarrassment and inconvenience caused," the paper said in a statement ( right ).

Following publication of the article, Skrine & Co, the law firm which the ex-CJ's appointment now resides, issued a letter which questioned the facts used in the article.

It said that "some of the facts relied on by the writer of the article are skewed to create an effect intended to cast unnecessary imputations on the former chief justice".

It is believed that the law firm had threatened a multi-million ringgit law suit against the top-selling newspaper.

Impropriety implied

Soon after Mohamed Dzaiddin's retirement in March, Skrine & Co advertised the appointment in The Star , prompting scrutiny over the former chief justice's conduct.

In its June 5 report, 'Questions over ex-CJ's new job', The Star quoted lawyers, including statements made in a letter and an email, which allegedly implied impropriety on the part of Mohamed Dzaiddin, and raised questions over judicial independence.

Quoting lawyers Karpal Singh, Charles Hector, Darshan Singh Khaira and a number of unnamed sources, The Star's June 5 article also touched upon the issue of public perception and the traditional appointment of ex-judges following retirement.

The article also stated that Dzaiddin had presided over a matter in which Skrine was a party just two days before his retirement.

Skrine clarified this by stating that it only served as a 'nominal party' in that proceedings.

"Except for the case mentioned ... none of the lawyers of Skrine had argued any matter before Tun Dzaiddin during his tenure as the chief justice," read the letter that was published by The Star on June 7.

"We understand from Tun Dzaiddin that having read in chambers in Skrine in the 1960s, it was only natural for him to return to the place from where he started his legal career," it added.

Cooling off period

On Saturday, Bar Council chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari said there is no law or code of conduct that regulates the professional or commercial activities of judges after retirement.

He felt that there should a "cooling off period" after a judge's retirement before he is permitted to practise law.

DAP leader Lim Kit Siang, who is a lawyer, said that the controversy has highlighted grave public interest questions concerning not only the independence of the judiciary but the larger question of the integrity of public office holders.

He said that in addition to a bar or "cooling off period" before judges can practise law after retirement, there is also a need to prevent conflicts of interest by other public office-holders after their retirement.

"It seems to have become quite a common practice for heads of various government departments on retirement to straightaway join companies they had been dealing with just months before, raising grave conflict-of-interest issues.

"For instance, is it right and proper for say the secretary-general of the Health Ministry who had negotiated the privatisation of the pharmaceutical supply services to take up the employment with the successful bidder company immediately on retirement?"

Lim urged the Parliament to legislate an ethics law to prevent such conflicts of interest by public office-holders in post-employment situations.