DATUK Zaid Ibrahim has lambasted the judiciary and the government for their alleged double standards against Datuk Seri Najib Razak, citing the difference in treatment accorded to the former prime minister and businessman Nicky Liow.
Najib’s bid to adduce new evidence and postpone the hearing of his final appeal in the SRC International case was rejected by the Federal Court.
On the other hand, Liow was granted a discharge not amounting to an acquittal for his Sosma case at the Shah Alam High Court.
“We only asked for an adjournment of two months, not two years, to review the records of the case,” Zaid said in a video he posted on his Facebook.
But the decisions in Najib’s case were under the exercise of the court’s discretion while in Liow’s case, the decision followed the withdrawal of the charges against him in the exercise of the attorney-general’s (AG) discretion under Article 145(3) of the federal constitution – similarly with tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s son.
The court’s discretion and the AG’s discretion are not the same. So, where’s the double standard?
To be fair to Zaid, he is entitled to his criticism. No institution in a democracy should be beyond the reach of honest, fair criticism. The courts are no exception.
Courts have long accepted that judicial decisions may be subjected to fair criticism, in good faith, without attributing improper motives to the judges.
As Lord Atkin said, more than 80 years ago in Ambard v AG for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, “Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.”
It is the inalienable right of everyone to comment fairly upon any matter of public importance.
Thirty years later, the courts spoke again through the doyen of judges, Lord Denning, in the following words: “We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.
“It is the right of every man…to make fair comments, even outspoken comments, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to an appeal or not.” (R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319)
But the subsequent words of the great 20th-century judge must also not be lost on critics of the courts: “All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to the criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its vindication.”
Criticism must be fair. Fair criticism must be supported by argument and evidence, and have a rational basis. General and vague references do not constitute a rational basis. – The Vibes, August 27, 2022
Hafiz Hassan reads The Vibes
