PUTRAJAYA: Judges can make decisions independently based on facts and the law without any fear of the political or social outcomes of their decisions, said Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
“A judge is meant to be an independent constitutional arbiter of justice between the state and its subjects (and vice versa) as well as between subjects inter se.
“His or her loyalty is apparent in a constitutionally ordained judicial oath taken to protect, preserve and defend the Federal Constitution,” she said in her speech yesterday at the opening of the Legal Year 2024 at Putrajaya International Convention Centre.
On the public prosecutor’s decision to withdraw criminal charges against certain high-profile individuals, including in 2023, Tengku Maimun said the decisions were not received well by the public.
“A large part of the blame was put on the judiciary for making the only available consequential order on the withdrawal of such charges.”
Tengku Maimun added that while free speech is central to democracy, such liberties are not a licence to propagate hate speech, fake news or propaganda.
She said comments and criticism must be based on facts and not mere lies or ignorance.
“In the best case, uneducated comments reflect sheer ignorance and in the worst case, they reflect malice.”
Tengku Maimun cited two instances of external interference in the judiciary when hearing constitutional cases, one involving that of a man, and another of a women’s rights group, against the Selangor government on matters about Islam.
“Both cases merely dealt with the question of whether the state legislative assembly was empowered to pass certain legislation.
“However, the two cases were made out by some parties to be more than what they were.
“The criticism of the judiciary was based on ‘wilful ignorance of its functions’ and a possible ‘agenda’ to present the institution as prejudicial against Islam when this was not the case.
“The cases merely sought to re-emphasise the clear demarcation of powers between the federation and the states. But the criticisms can equate to attempts to intimidate judges when making their decisions.”
Tengku Maimun said some critics went too far and even questioned the religions of the judges involved, suggesting that they had some ulterior motives in making their decisions.
She added that in certain respects the comments incited hatred and ill-will in the public against the judiciary or created fear of the possibility of distorted judicial decisions.
“In certain other respects, large crowds were mobilised and their presence was used to intimidate judges,” she said when expressing the need for the public to draw the line between legitimate criticism of judicial decisions and acts that harm its integrity.
On attacks against the judiciary, Tengku Maimun said some actors in the justice system play crucial roles, stressing that no person should be allowed to use the judiciary and the justice system for personal gain.
“The Attorney-General’s Chambers can continue to carry out its functions to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and the overall justice system by acting against those who unfairly attack the justice system.
“As the guardian of public interest, the attorney-general is arguably the only legal person in the country who can initiate contempt proceedings against a person if he makes scurrilous comments attacking the judiciary in respect of decided or presently argued cases,” she said.
