The recent High Court judgment barring lawyers from meeting to discuss alleged impropriety involving the chief justice gives the perception that the judicial process is being used to stifle freedom of expression, said a United Nations special rapporteur.

"If the legal profession is not able to have the freedom to assemble and discuss affairs in the judiciary, which is its legitimate right, who else can?" asked Param Curamaswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, in an interview with malaysiakini .

"By handing down such judgements, wouldn't the court be perceived as undermining its own integrity, independence and impartiality?" he added.

Last month, High Court judge R.K. Nathan granted an injunction preventing the Bar from holding its emergency general meeting on the grounds that the allegations against Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, which formed the basis of the decision to convene the meeting, were unsubstantiated.

Eusoff had allegedly spent a week-long holiday in New Zealand six years ago with corporate lawyer V.K Lingam, who appeared in cases before him.

According to Param, at the Malaysian Bar's annual general meeting last year, a wide mandate was given to the council to investigate all improprieties within the judiciary, and if necessary, call for a royal commission to be set up.

"The council does not require any further mandate from the general body. It should proceed and collate the evidence," he said.

Param is currently serving his third, and final, three-year term as UN special rapporteur. His term was extended in April by the international body despite strenuous objection from the Malaysian government ("[#1] Malaysia seeks to limit UN special rapporteur's term [/#]", April 24).

He is currently applying to strike out four defamation suits against him on the grounds that, as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, he enjoyed immunity from civil and criminal litigation in respects of statements made in his official capacity.

The defamation suits, totalling RM280 million in damages, were filed by MBF Capital and MBF Northern Securities; lawyer Lingam; business tycoon Vincent Tan, Berjaya Industrial and Berjaya Corporation (Cayman); and Insas and Megapolitan Nominees, based on an interview Param gave to the International Commercial Litigation magazine in 1995.

The plaintiffs alleged that words used in the interview, entitled "Justice on Trial" and published in the journal's November, 1995 edition, were defamatory of them.

The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, gave an advisory opinion last year that Param was entitled to immunity from legal process in respect to words spoken during the course of his mission as a UN special rapporteur under the UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities.

However, the High Court registrar dismissed Param's application to strike out the defamation suit on the grounds that his court was not bound by the opinion of the World Court.

Last Friday, Param's lawyers were informed that judge Nathan, who heard the appeal in February this year, has postponed his decision to a later unspecified date. The judgment was originally due to be announced today.

According to Param, while other countries in the region, which never had a good independent system of justice are now striving to improve, Malaysia has inherited a good judicial system but allowed it to deteriorate, and the authorities appear impervious to calls for reform.

"In the light of all the present allegations of judicial improprieties, investigations ought to be carried out by an independent body like a royal commission whether there have been breaches of the Judges Code of Ethics.

"If there is evidence, then the judges concerned should be asked to resign. If not, a tribunal should be set up to try them. Unless the few black sheep are removed, the entire judiciary will remain tainted by their continued presence," he told malaysiakini .

Param added that the present system of selection, appointment, promotion and discipline is not up to international standards.

"There must be an independent mechanism like a judicial services commission responsible for selection and recommendation including promotions," he added. "This mechanism should not be left in the hands of just one person, be he the prime minister or chief justice," he said.

In addition, he said that there should be an independent complaints mechanism where the public can lodge complaints against judges.

"Judges, too, are accountable and subject to the law," he added.

According to Param, the independence of the judiciary in any country will ultimately be measured by the more high profile, politically and economically sensitive cases.

"That's where the test of the judiciary comes," he said.