Perak Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah has urged judges not to be afraid to express dissent in their judgments, as this is essential in upholding the independence of the judiciary.

This is even more crucial today, he said, as Malaysia’s institutions sometimes seem to be under threat.

“For the rule of law to flourish, courts and their participants should be allowed to express a variety of ideas and principles. Every judge should have the opportunity to participate fully, even while the majority decision rules the outcome.

“This judicial independence in turn helps to ensure that the rule of law is fully upheld […]

“We live in challenging times, in which our institutions sometimes seem to be under threat. This makes it all the more crucial that the public’s regard for the judiciary should be at its highest and clearest.

“More than ever, we need courageous and fair-minded judges to instil confidence that the judicial system remains sacrosanct in guarding the rights, interests, and liberty of all,” he said in a speech in Kuala Lumpur today.

His Majesty was speaking at the launch of the book ‘Justice Above All: Selected Judgments of Arifin Zakaria with Commentaries’ today.

Arifin Zakaria is the Chief Justice of Malaysia. He is due to retire soon. 

According to Court of Appeal president Md Raus Sharif, the book was conceived by a committee that wanted to give Arifin a parting gift that would commemorate his scholarship and deep sense of justice.

The book’s contributors, he said, included many eminent members of the legal profession, including Singapore's chief justice Sundaresh Menon.

Meanwhile in his speech, Nazrin said good judgments are the cornerstone of common law, but knowledge and wisdom alone are not enough to deliver good judgments.

“They must always be accompanied by intellectual honesty and, above all independence.

“Although there is undoubtedly value in unanimous opinions, it is critical that judges speak in dissent where necessary.

“Some judges may hold strong legal and moral convictions, yet fail to articulate their concerns in their judgments,” he said.

He pointed out that dissenting judgments are sometimes turned into law, such as in the US court case of Brown vs Board of Education in 1954, where the US Supreme Court gave weight to a dissenting judgment from a 1896 court decision.

“As a result, and in a historic judgment, then chief justice Earl Warren held that racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the US constitutional guarantee of equality of rights,” he added.

He said judges sometimes fail to speak their mind out of deference to their peers, out of concern that their comments would be dismissed, or in belief that their thoughts are unimportant.

However, he reminded that judges and the judicial decision-making process can easily handle differing opinions on any issue.