LAWYERS differ on whether Chief Justice Raus Sharif was right in rescinding the invitation for the Malaysian Bar president and the attorney-general to speak at the opening of the new legal year today.

Raus had today told reporters that he was the sole speaker at this year’s opening ceremony as it would have been “awkward” and “improper” for the Bar president to talk about Raus’ appointment to the top judge post as the matter was an ongoing legal case. 

Bar president George Varughese and Attorney-General Mohamed Apandi Ali were not invited to speak at today’s proceedings. The Bar boycotted the event. 

Human rights lawyer Azhar Harun, in a Facebook post today, agreed with Raus that Varughese should not have insisted on talking about the appointments of Raus and Court of Appeal President Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

“This time, the Bar is in the wrong!” Azhar said. 

He said opinions on the “impropriety of the appointment” were to be heard in court, to which the Bar had filed to challenge the constitutionality of the appointments.

“The event is a formal event, officiated by the Chief Justice. And here we are criticising the CJ and making arguments about his appointment when in fact there is already a court case pending on that issue!

“That being the case, I think it was right for Tun Raus not to invite the BC President and consequentially, the Attorney-General,” said Azhar. 

The Bar filed a originating summons on October 10 seeking to declare Raus and Zulkefli’s appointments void and unconstitutional.

A court order is also sought for their removal from their respective offices, with the Bar arguing that the two men have exceeded the age limit of 66 years and 6 months prescribed in the federal Constitution.

Varughese, in a statement responding to Raus’ comments today, said the Office of the Chief Justice had requested that he dropped the subject of the appointments from his speech. 

Varughese said he “holds firm” to the belief that the Bar president’s speech must not be censored and that attempts to do so represented an “assault” on the independence of the Bar, made up of some 17,000 members. 

Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, who is Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s lawyer, said Varughese, in his capacity as Bar president, should have been given the opportunity to speak freely at the proceedings.

“Personally, I have the highest respect for the members of the judiciary. All of them are more than capable. 

“Professionally speaking, however, it was wrong for the Chief Justice to not only remove the right of the President of the Bar and the AG to deliver their speeches at the opening, but worst still, to change the name to the opening of the ‘judicial year’,” said Haniff. 

The event is traditionally known as the opening of the legal year.

Haniff said ceremony was a “sombre affair” meant to celebrate the legal profession and a tradition to be kept in continuity. 

“It’s meant to review the significant events that had happened in the courts in the outgoing year, with the view that whatever pertinent issues going forward should be discussed or celebrated,” he said. 

“There is no reason that any part of these itineraries would have gone against the values of the legal fraternity. At an official function like that, you need to give the relevant parties the opportunity to speak,” he said. 

Haniff said the extension of the tenure of the two highest seats in the judiciary was an issue that could not be denied: “It is a constitutional crisis in the making until the court decides otherwise. You cannot run away from this issue.”

“It can be discussed, of course with decorum, so that all stakeholders can educate the public as to why they’re taking such views.

“Having matters in court does not ipso facto stop public discussions about it, or even the parties before the court,” he said.

Criminal lawyer Rajsurian Pillai said the change of format could be interpreted  as “an attempt to silence the Bar from airing their views on the matter.”

“Each of the three bodies should be given the chance to speak and not be silenced merely because what has to be said is not savoury.”

Rajsurian disagreed with Raus’ reasoning for not allowing the Bar president to speak freely.

“Merely because it might be awkward, as he puts it, is not a good reason to silence the Bar. The Bar’s position is to uphold justice without fear or favour.” – January 12, 2018.