“Isham falsely implied that the need to follow protocol, as explained by the Chief Justice, was something that came out of the Chief Justice’s mouth alone”
Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen
محكمه ڤرسكوتوان هاروس ڤرتيمبڠ ڤروسيديڠ هينا محكمه ترهادڤ اشعام جليل
UNTUK BERITA TERKINI, SERTAI TELEGRAM TTF DI SINI
FMT reported that UMNO information chief, Isham Jalil, cautioned the Chief Justice of Malaysia on aspects related to the investigation of judges.
According to the report, Isham said judges are not above the law and are not excluded from the same criminal investigation procedures imposed on other people.
Isham added that authorities should not be forced to consult the Chief Justice first, or obtain her permission before acting against any judge who is suspected of committing a criminal offence.
I visited Isham’s Facebook page to verify the report and found what was reported to be true – and perplexing.
First and foremost, the fact that “judges are not above the law and are not excluded from the same criminal investigation procedures imposed on other people,” as pointed out by Isham, was never even disputed by the Chief Justice.
As a matter of fact, the Chief Justice herself pointed out the same thing almost word for word, adding only that there were protocols involved when investigating a judge.
This wasn’t the Chief Justice’s opinion, mind you, but the unanimous decision of a seven-judge panel at the Federal Court which the Chief Justice chaired and later represented.
In representing the panel, the Chief Justice announced – not opined – that the powers of the Public Prosecutor, when conducting criminal proceedings against judges, must be exercised in good faith and only in genuine cases.
“Because they are serving judges, criminal investigations against them are subjected to a higher standard in light of the doctrine of judicial independence,” she added.
And she’s absolutely right.
Fact is, a judge can easily fall victim to trumped up allegations or fabrications, particularly when a court decision delivered by the said judge does not favour an accused, and in Judge Nazlan’s case, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
In other words, when a judge is accused of wrongdoing, one has to deal with that accusation very, very carefully and differently compared to an accusation levelled at someone who isn’t from the judicial fraternity.
So yes, “a crime is a crime, and judges aren’t above the law,” but when it involves judges, you have to be extraordinarily careful and adhere to some sort of protocol to protect judges from being victimised.
Isham is known in many spheres to be Najib’s mouthpiece, and this automatically raises a hundred and one alarms.
Isham falsely implied that the need to follow protocol and consult or seek permission from the Chief Justice when investigating judges came exclusively from the Chief Justice.
Was Isham not aware that the Chief Justice was speaking on behalf of a seven-judge panel from the Federal Court, and that the decision reached by the panel is now a legal precedent?
I sincerely hope that the Federal Court takes Isham to task for what he said and initiate contempt proceedings against him.
