10 hours ago
Justice for a senior judge when obligation to secrecy is contravened — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 26 — The Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2010 is an Act to provide for the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) in relation to the appointment of judges of the superior courts, to set out the powers and functions of the JAC, to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 1(3) of the Act says that the Act applies to the appointments of judges of the Federal Court, Court of Appeal and High Court and judicial commissioners and shall include the appointments of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya and the Chief Judge of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak made on or after the commencement of the Act.
Section 2 of the Act mandates that the prime minister uphold the continued independence of the judiciary and must have regard to:
(a) the need to defend that independence;
(b) the need for the judiciary to have the support necessary to enable them to exercise their functions;
(c) the need for public interest to be properly represented in regard to matters relating to the judiciary, the administration of justice and related matters.
I do not wish though to go into details of the Act. I wish only to highlight Section 32 of the Act in light of recent media reports of a senior judge reportedly being summoned by the JAC to answer several allegations of interference in the appointment of judicial officers dating back to last year.
The Palace of Justice, which houses Malaysia's Court of Appeal and Federal Court, is seen in Putrajaya March 18, 2024. — Picture by Choo Choy May.
A subordinate of the judge concerned reportedly lodged a police report two weeks ago against a reporter from a news portal who had sent a text message seeking the judge's response to the allegations of interference.
Section 32 on 'Obligation of secrecy' states as follows:
(1) No member of the Commission and officers and servants of the Commission, whether during or after his tenure of office or employment, shall disclose any information or document obtained by him in the course of his duties.
(2) No other person who has by any means access to any information or documents relating to the affairs of the Commission shall disclose such information or document.
(3) Where any person ceases to be a member of the Commission, he shall return to the Secretary all papers and documents entrusted to him by virtue of his membership of the Commission.
(4) Any person who contravenes subsection (1), (2) or (3) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.
If the prime minister is mandated to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary, every member, officer and servant of the JAC is obligated to secrecy in the course of his duties, whether during or after his tenure of office or employment.
That explains why a police report was lodged against the reporter for a text message seeking the judge's response to the allegations of interference in the appointment of judicial officers.
The report should be seen as properly made so that the authorities investigate how such information was leaked.
The message should not have been texted to the judge when proceedings of the JAC are secret to its members, officers and servants.
Any person who contravenes the obligation to secrecy commits an offence under the Act.
If there are reported heated discussions at monthly meetings of the JAC, let it be. Can't the JAC have such heated discussions?
The more serious issue is when obligation to secrecy is contravened.
Justice must also be done to the senior judge. It is not an offence to be involved in heated discussions in the course of his duties.
