KUALA LUMPUR (July 14): The Malaysian Bar clarified on Monday that its "Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence" — a march from the Palace of Justice (POJ) to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to submit a memorandum — is not politically motivated, even as reports suggest other groups may participate.
“As such, the walk is not political in nature and will be strictly confined to [demonstrating] the Bar’s concerns regarding vacancies in the judiciary, key office bearer positions, the judicial appointment process, continuity in judicial leadership and more broadly, the independence of the judiciary.
“The Bar Council has, in accordance with subsection 9(1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, given notification to the Putrajaya police district officer in charge, and the police will facilitate the gathering and peaceful walk to ensure that the event proceeds in an orderly and safe manner,” a circular said.
The Edge understands that the Bar had informed the Putrajaya police of the walk last Wednesday (July 9).
The circular further said that representatives from the PMO will be present to receive the memorandum after the 2.6km walk from the POJ to the PMO where the event is scheduled to begin at 2pm.
As mentioned, the walk is to express the legal eagles' concern over the vacancies for the top posts and other senior judges in the Federal Court and the non-filling of positions of judges at various levels, especially the High Court.
The Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) has listed 31 judicial vacancies which have yet to be filled, including the posts vacated by former Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and former Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim, both of whom retired earlier this month.
Besides the top two posts, the Federal Court has two vacancies for judges, the Court of Appeal has three, and the High Court has 24.
Currently, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim is assuming the responsibility and duties of the CJ, while Federal Court judge Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof, similarly, is taking over the tasks and responsibility of the Court of Appeal President.
LFL expresses concern that police probe is only on leaked JAC minutes, not contents
Meanwhile, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) director Zaid Malek, in a statement, said Inspector General of Police Datuk Seri Mohd Khalid Ismail had said the police are investigating a leak of the JAC meeting minutes under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA), and Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil had also warned the public of action under the OSA.
Zaid said this displays a complete disconnect from the public’s concern over the contents of the JAC minutes and threatening action under the OSA.
“It has been a longstanding promise of the Pakatan Harapan that a Freedom of Information Act will be passed and that the OSA will be abolished. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim himself has previously announced that the government will be tabling the Freedom of Information Bill sometime this year, acknowledging that the public has a right to access information under the jurisdiction of the government,” he said.
Zaid further questioned the threat to use the OSA when the present government had committed itself to transparency, the free flow of information and other reforms.
“Is the government intending to arrest tens of thousands of members of the public who have now seen, shared or are in possession of the leaked JAC minutes? Are there going to be mass arrests under OSA if the public discusses or refers to the JAC minutes?” he asked further.
Zaid said the government should instead address the concerns of the judiciary, which he described as having become a national crisis.
“The leak of the JAC minutes was, in fact, in the public interest, and not against it. It placed [to] the public facts which [were] crucial [that] the public should know of. The public had a right to know.
“There is no need for any OSA investigation. Instead, the government must immediately impose a moratorium on all police probes under the OSA, pending its repeal. This is a policy decision which the government can and must take, and which would be consistent with their oft-repeated claims that they are committed to reforms,” the LFL director said.