KUALA LUMPUR – A group of former Malaysian Bar presidents have expressed their full support for current president Karen Cheah in her vocal defence of the independence of the judiciary.
Eight former Bar presidents said they stand with the judiciary in these “unprecedented times” as the institution faces an onslaught of attacks by individuals attempting to strike fear in judges and undermine their independence.
“We, thus, stand with the Malaysian Bar who will defend the brave judges for upholding their oath of office without fear or favour,” they said in a joint statement.
The statement was signed by Zainur Zakaria, Datuk Mah Weng Kwai, Datuk Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari, Datuk Yeo Yang Poh, Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan, Datuk Lim Chee Wee, Steven Thiru, and George Varughese.
Recently, a lawyer of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, hinted that legal action would be initiated against Cheah following her comments on him in relation to Najib’s final appeal against his SRC International Bhd conviction, which saw the Federal Court upholding the decision and his jail sentence.
The ex-presidents also pointed out that all Federal Court appeals are scheduled in advance on dates that accommodate all parties and directions are then issued by the court for the filing of submissions prior to the date of hearing.
The appeal is then periodically managed at what are termed “case management” sessions, they said.
“The parties, therefore, know when the relevant documents must be filed and it is incumbent on the lawyers to ensure compliance with all directions.
“All lawyers are familiar with these standard procedures. They are not unusual and are applicable to all litigants,” they said, ostensibly taking a jab at Najib’s lawyers.
They also examined the chronology of the events and explained how they believe Najib’s defence team was given an abundance of time to prepare for the case before the hearing in August.
They took note of Hisyam’s bid on August 19 to discharge himself after his refusal to make any submissions to defend his client and was later refused by the court as it would have left Najib without representation.
The former Bar presidents said it is abundantly clear that the Federal Court had given Najib’s counsel every opportunity to make submissions on the merits but he repeatedly refused to do so.
As such, they said, Najib as the appellant had thus made a deliberate and considered choice through his counsel not to make submissions on the merits.
“Hence, the narrative that there was no due process accorded to the appellant is patently false,” they said.
“The correct position is that counsel for the appellant refused to submit on the appeals despite various opportunities afforded to him to do so.
“Ultimately the Federal Court relied on all the records of the appeals that had been filed, which included the Court of Appeal submissions of both parties.” – The Vibes, August 30, 2022
.jpeg)
