The government today denied the allegation that the recent appointment of several senior judges was politically-motivated.

"The allegation that the appointment of judges are no longer based on performance and experience is not true, the government denies this strongly," Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor told the Dewan Rakyat.

The minister, who was responding to a Barisan Nasional parliamentarian who raised the issue of transparency in the promotions last week, said this in his 90-minute winding-up speech on the 2004 budget.

Eight judges were promoted in the July 24 exercise but critics questioned three who shared one common factor - having heard jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's cases. These are judges Panjan Singh Gill, Ariffin Jaka and Augustine Paul.

Tengku Adnan stressed that the appointment and promotion of judges were done in accordance to the Federal Constitution.

He added that the criteria in the constitution also corresponded with the principles on the independence of judiciary adopted by the United Nations. The UN principles outlined the ability, integrity and experience as the basis for judges promotion.

Last Monday, Chang See Ten (BN-Gelang Patah) in his debate touched on various aspects concerning the independence of the judiciary in this country.

He said the July promotions should have been "as transparent as possible" and urged the government to give due concern for the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) called by the Bar Council to discuss the matter.

Similar concerns were also raised by the Bar Council which will further discuss this matter at an extraordinary general meeting this Saturday.

A-G's immunity

Responding to another query from Chang, the minister said the government will not set up a mechanism to make the attorney-general accountable to the public for his actions.

Under Article 145 of the Federal Constitution, the attorney-general was empowered to initiate and drop criminal charges without having to account for his actions to the public.

Tengku Adnan said despite the attorney-general having this discretion, it has always been used responsibly and without bad faith.

He added that those who were dissatisfied with the attorney-general's decision could challenge it in court.

The MP had claimed that such immunity was "unreasonable" since even the prime minister and his cabinet were answerable to the Parliament.

On another question raised by Chang, the minister said the judiciary already had a guideline to punish lawyers for contempt.

He said this guideline was established through the development of the law in several court judgments pertaining to the punishment for contempt.

Among these, he said was the guideline that judges should be satisfied with the evidence and act in accordance to the rule of law.