PUTRAJAYA: Judges can make decisions independently based mostly on information and the regulation with none concern of the political or social outcomes of their decisions, stated Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.
“A choose is supposed to be an impartial constitutional arbiter of justice between the state and its topics (and vice versa) in addition to between topics inter se.
“His or her loyalty is clear in a constitutionally ordained judicial oath taken to shield, protect and defend the Federal Constitution,” she stated in her speech yesterday on the opening of the Legal Year 2024 at Putrajaya International Convention Centre.
On the general public prosecutor’s choice to withdraw prison fees in opposition to sure high-profile people, together with in 2023, Tengku Maimun stated the decisions weren’t obtained nicely by the general public.
“A big a part of the blame was placed on the judiciary for making the one out there consequential order on the withdrawal of such fees.”
Tengku Maimun added that whereas free speech is central to democracy, such liberties will not be a licence to propagate hate speech, faux information or propaganda.
She stated feedback and criticism have to be based mostly on information and never mere lies or ignorance.
“In one of the best case, uneducated feedback replicate sheer ignorance and within the worst case, they replicate malice.”
Tengku Maimun cited two situations of exterior interference within the judiciary when listening to constitutional instances, one involving that of a person, and one other of a girls’s rights group, in opposition to the Selangor authorities on issues about Islam.
“Both instances merely handled the query of whether or not the state legislative meeting was empowered to cross sure laws.
“However, the 2 instances had been made out by some events to be greater than what they had been.
“The criticism of the judiciary was based mostly on ‘wilful ignorance of its features’ and a attainable ‘agenda’ to current the establishment as prejudicial in opposition to Islam when this was not the case.
“The instances merely sought to re-emphasise the clear demarcation of powers between the federation and the states. But the criticisms can equate to makes an attempt to intimidate judges when making their decisions.”
Tengku Maimun stated some critics went too far and even questioned the religions of the judges concerned, suggesting that that they had some ulterior motives in making their decisions.
She added that in sure respects the feedback incited hatred and ill-will within the public in opposition to the judiciary or created concern of the potential of distorted judicial decisions.
“In sure different respects, giant crowds had been mobilised and their presence was used to intimidate judges,” she stated when expressing the necessity for the general public to draw the road between respectable criticism of judicial decisions and acts that hurt its integrity.
On assaults in opposition to the judiciary, Tengku Maimun stated some actors within the justice system play essential roles, stressing that no individual must be allowed to use the judiciary and the justice system for private achieve.
“The Attorney-General’s Chambers can proceed to perform its features to protect the integrity of the judiciary and the general justice system by performing in opposition to those that unfairly assault the justice system.
“As the guardian of public curiosity, the attorney-general is arguably the one authorized individual within the nation who can provoke contempt proceedings in opposition to an individual if he makes scurrilous feedback attacking the judiciary in respect of determined or presently argued instances,” she stated.
