LFL rubbishes ex-chief judge's claim of pressure over constitutional ruling

Free Malaysia Today

6 days ago

LFL's N Surendran said judicial deliberation shouldn't be mistaken for interference.
PETALING JAYA : Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has rubbished claims of judicial interference after a former chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak said that a top judge pressured him to rule in favour of a litigant in a constitutional case against the federal government.
Abdul Rahman Sebli, who retired last Thursday, claimed in his farewell speech that a 'very senior member of the judiciary' had emailed him, criticising his interpretation of the constitutional issue at hand.
Rahman said judicial independence was not only about interference by the executive, but also about a judge's own peers in the discharge of judicial functions.
In a statement today, LFL adviser N Surendran said such accusations were 'plainly wrong' and defied logic, particularly as the senior judge in question was part of the seven-member Federal Court panel hearing the case.
'How can a judge 'interfere' in a case which she herself was involved in deciding? Such a suggestion defies logic,' he said, without citing names.
Surendran said unless someone outside the bench, such as from the executive, tried to influence the decision, it did not qualify as interference.
He also argued that there was nothing 'sinister' about judges on multi-judge panels discussing cases and circulating draft judgments to persuade colleagues.
'In other words, there can be nothing wrong with any judge suggesting to his fellow judge in the same panel that his interpretation of the law is incorrect, and to try to change his position on it.
'This is part of the usual process of judicial decision-making, not just in Malaysia, but also of Supreme Courts in other common-law countries such as the UK or the US,' he said.
Surendran also said it was 'strange' that a now former Federal Court judge was making a complaint that he was affected by 'peer pressure', adding that Federal Court judges enjoy security of tenure and constitutional protection.
While acknowledging that judicial interference was a serious concern, Surendran warned against diluting its meaning.
'Judicial interference is a very serious matter. But it must not be confused with entirely appropriate and necessary internal processes of judicial deliberation,' he said.