The Bar Council's decision to call an extraordinary general meeting ( EGM) to discuss the recent promotion of judges must not be viewed as possible contempt of court, said senior lawyers contacted today.

Last week, council chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari ( left ) confirmed that members of the Bar would be discussing the recent promotions in an EGM on Oct 4. He was also confident that there would be no serious objections to the meet.

Former Bar Council chairperson Param Cumaraswamy disagreed that the move to call for the EGM could run foul of the ruling made in the 1999 case of K Raja Segaran v Bar Council, when it was held that public discussion on the judiciary was contemptuous and unconstitutional.

Param said the ruling which affirmed a High Court decision to grant lawyer Raja Segaran an injunction to stop the council from discussing matters pertaining to the judiciary in an EGM, was "bad" and thus, should not remain in Malaysian law.

Raja Segaran had filed a suit to prevent the Bar from discussing the motion that the government set up a tribunal to investigate the improper conduct of then Chief Justice Mohd Eusoff Chin's holiday in New Zealand, purportedly with lawyer V K Lingam.

Public interest

"If I understand correctly, the (forthcoming) EGM is to discuss the fundamental issue on the independence of judiciary. It should not be viewed by any party as an attempt to commit contempt of court," said Param ( left ).

"The right of an independent judiciary is the right of all citizens as the judiciary is the institution for the people in seeking justice. It is not the rights and privileges of judges and lawyers alone."

He said the Bar, as part of the legal profession, was duty-bound to speak up for the protection of the independence of the judiciary.

"It has done do so in the past, and I am glad that it has decided to discuss the issue in their forum," said the former UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judiciary in Malaysia.

Holding similar views was senior lawyer R Sivarasa ( left ) who said there was nothing wrong in lawyers discussing the issues relating to independence of the judiciary as this is of public interest.

"The case (involving Raja Segaran) does not accord with the standard of transparency and accountability of the judiciary that is accepted internationally and practised in a democratic state," he said.

He urged the judiciary not to be slighted by the move to hold the EGM, but instead to accept this as a step to help preserve judicial independence.

"As (part of) one of the most important institutions in the country, they must know that the independence and the transparency of the institution are within the interest of the public. On that basis they should welcome the move," he said.

' Promotions improper'

Lawyer Tommy Thomas ( left ) expressed confidence that the EGM would not be in breach of any rulings or laws.

"I agree that they should hold the EGM... this is my personal opinion. I don't think it should be problem. Those who want to attend it can do so while those who don't (want to get involved) can stay away," he said.

On July 24, Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim defended the promotion of the junior judges - Justices Pajan Singh Gill, Arifin Jaka and Augustine Paul - stating that the promotion was not based on seniority alone but on ability, integrity and experience as well.

Ahmad Fairuz said that he knew the judges better than the lawyers, saying: "They (the lawyers) know the judges when they go to court. But I know the judges more than that. I now about their personal lives."

The promotions drew fire from lawyers who felt that the entire process lacked propriety.

Prior to the promotions, the Bar on July 5 had expressed its concern over the issue and urged the judiciary not to discard the traditional approach to promotions, with reference to seniority.