Not the first time Tengku Maimun has reprimanded judiciary critics


CHIEF Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s advice to the public today to understand the court’s decision by reading judgments before making comments was not the first time she has done so.

She said the same during her speech at the oath of office and loyalty ceremony of High Court judges on April 27. 

At the ceremony, the chief justice reminded the High Court judges that they had just taken the oath of office and allegiance to:

1. Carry out their duties honestly; 

2. Pledge allegiance to Malaysia; and 

3. Preserve, protect and defend the constitution. 

She further reminded the judges that their appointments were based on criteria including integrity, competency, having a good moral standing, hardworking attitude, impartiality, assertiveness, ability to make timely judgments, and the ability to manage cases well.

She said: “An important aspect of judicial work is to provide the grounds of judgment for cases that have been decided. Giving a reason or an argument for reaching the decision is just as important, if not more important, than making the decision itself.” 

Addressing criticism against courts’ decisions in high-profile cases, she said: “Recently, the courts have been dealing with high-profile cases involving public interest. It is natural for us judges to receive criticism and accusations from those who are aggrieved by the courts’ decisions, especially in the cases of public interest.” 

Noting that allegations against judges and the judiciary had been “a bit outrageous”, she continued: “Judges are by no means immune to public criticism and must be accountable to those they serve. We are all subject to scrutiny. That is why we write judgments, so they can be read, analysed, discussed and debated. In fact, the whole system of appeals is based on judges’ awareness of their own fallibility. 

“Hence, citizens, including politicians, are, to a certain extent, free to criticise the judiciary. However, that does not mean it is open to citizens, including politicians, to level unfounded and scurrilous attacks against the judiciary or a particular judge to further their own end.” 

To be sure, it was the first time that such words of advice had been said by any judge. It is apposite to recall the words of great English judge Lord Atkin in Ambard v Attorney-General (1936) AC 322, who said: 

“The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein: provided that the members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune.

“Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.” – September 10, 2022.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.



Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments