Reform contempt laws, not use them to shield judiciary - Zaid

Summary

• Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim calls for reforms to contempt of court laws, arguing that they are increasingly used to stifle dissent.

• He says the prosecution of individuals for “scandalising the court” is an outdated approach incompatible with modern democracy.

• Zaid adds that contempt laws should be updated with clearly defined offences, saying the courts must earn respect via sound judgment and reasoning, not punitive measures.

Former law minister Zaid Ibrahim has urged for an urgent overhaul of Malaysia’s contempt of court laws, warning that their continued use to shield the judiciary from criticism risks eroding public trust.

In a series of posts on X, Zaid cautioned that contempt proceedings - once rare and reserved for serious disruptions - are increasingly being used in both civil and syariah courts as a tool to suppress dissent.

“What was once a rare and serious recourse has now become a frequent weapon - sometimes used more to shield the bench from criticism rather than to protect the administration of justice,” he said.

Zaid’s remarks came in response to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announcement yesterday that it would initiate contempt proceedings against lawyer Shafee Abdullah over his controversial “Nazi Germany” analogy when commenting on former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s royal addendum case.

The AGC described Shafee’s remark as being made in the context of an ongoing case, and said it “constitutes a serious and unwarranted attack” on the dignity, authority, and independence of the judiciary.

In response, Shafee clarified that his remark was not meant to discredit the judiciary or any specific judge.

He said it was intended “to educate the public on the essential characteristics of a proper judicial decision under the rule of law” and to reinforce, rather than undermine, confidence in the courts.

‘Colonial days are over’

Zaid, meanwhile, acknowledged that contempt in the face of the court, such as disruptive behaviour during proceedings or disobeying court orders, can be justified.

However, he argued that prosecuting individuals for so-called offences like “scandalising the court” or “bringing the judiciary into disrepute” is an outdated approach incompatible with a modern democracy.

Tracing the origins of such contempt laws to 16th-century England, Zaid said they were developed by judges who were then seen as extensions of royal power.

“To shield themselves, judges developed contempt laws as a form of legal armour - not to protect justice, but to protect themselves,” he said.

“These same principles were exported by the British Empire to its colonies, including Malaya, where they became convenient tools to silence dissent and suppress anti-colonial voices under the guise of protecting judicial dignity. But those days are over,” he added.

Zaid stressed that today’s judiciary, as an institution enshrined in the Federal Constitution, must earn public respect through fairness and sound reasoning, not through punitive measures against critics.

“The dignity of the courts can, and must, rest on the strength of their reasoning, not the silencing of dissent,” he said.

“If the courts wish to be respected, they must earn it through fairness, impartiality, and moral authority - not through threats of fines and imprisonment against those who dare to speak critically.”

He also called on the AGC to codify contempt laws into a modern, rights-based statute with clearly defined offences that reflect the principles of justice in a democratic society.

“We must move away from this colonial reflex to punish speech, and instead demand a statute that focuses on clearly defined, narrowly tailored offences that genuinely threaten the administration of justice,” said Zaid.

“Free expression and fair comment are not threats to justice - they are its lifeblood.

“Yes, judges are special - but not so special as to be above criticism or to command obedience by fear,” he added.

Separately, Lawyers for Liberty director Zaid Malek said Shafee has a right to his views and a duty to speak up, in court and outside, in defence of his client.

“He must not be threatened or harassed by the state in any manner for doing so. If lawyers cannot do their job freely and without hindrance, the freedoms of ordinary Malaysians will be jeopardised.

“The judiciary is the last bastion between the all-powerful state and the individual, and lawyers play a central role in the judicial process,” said the human rights lawyer, who pointed out that the right to counsel is guaranteed under Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution.

AGC to pursue contempt action against Shafee over 'Nazi-Germany' view

Teacher, wiring technician fined RM5k each for attempted adultery

PM not seeking immunity, says aide after LFL urges AG to intervene

Shafee clarifies 'Nazi-Germany' remark

Defamation: Lecturer ordered to pay Yeoh RM400k

'AG should prevent dangerous precedents in PM's immunity claim'