When the Council of Rulers did not even entertain former Chief Justice
Ahmad Feiruz's request for an extension of his tenure, it went beyond
royal rebuff. It was a very public and equally royal repudiation of
Prime Minister Abdullah's judgment.
The Council went further. Traditionally it does not even
announce details of its meetings, but on October 31st, 2007 the Rulers
specifically stated that the item was not even on their agenda.
Presumably they went out of their way to declare this fact openly to
pre-empt anyone from "spinning" this royal snub into something else.
The immediate consequence was that Feiruz left office
unceremoniously the next day, with no end-of-term "photo ops," elaborate
dinners, or the obligatory farewell tours. There was not even a parting
interview or any dispensing of words of wisdom. It was the body language
of someone drummed out of office rather than a dignified farewell of
someone proud of his legacy. It was the image of a guard dog turned
renegade, desperate to escape for fear of being shot, with its tail
between its legs after it was found snatching one of the lambs it was
supposed to protect.
On this point, Ahmad Feiruz had read the situation well; his
legacy is not one that the nation should be proud of; neither should he.
Has Prime Minister Abdullah learned anything from this
disgraceful saga? Sadly, no! In elevating recently appointed Judge Zaki
Azmi to be President of the Court of Appeals, the number two slot and
thus potentially in line to be the next Chief Justice, Abdullah has again
demonstrated his incompetence as well as inability and unwillingness to
learn from his mistakes.
This is the same Zaki Azmi who before his elevation to the
bench grabbed headlines with his attempt to have his second marriage in
South Thailand annulled. Press reports alleged that he might have
instructed his bride to destroy their wedding certificate, potentially an
act that could be construed as obstruction of justice, a serious charge
especially to an officer of the court.
Nonetheless he had the personal integrity then to withdraw
himself from UMNO's Disciplinary Committee investigating "money
politics." Thus we have the specter of a man who earlier felt himself
unqualified to be in UMNO Disciplinary Committee being appointed by the
party's leader to be next in line as Chief Justice. The mockery of this
appointment is lost on the judge as well as the Prime Minister.
A Shameful Legacy
The legacy of a judge is his written judgments. According to the Bar
Council, during the seven years he was on the High Court, Feiruz wrote a
meager seven judgments, about one a year! Such productivity! Despite
that, he was promoted to the Appeals Court. In the seven years he was on
the Federal Court (the highest) he was no better, writing a total of again
seven judgments only. This is not a question of quality making up for
quantity, rather a legacy lacking in both.
I read his last written judgment on the highly publicized Lina
Joy case in which he, as Chief Justice, wrote for the majority. It was
enough to discourage me from looking up his other cases. Feiruz
obviously had not heard of such basic tenets of democracy as the freedom
of beliefs and conscience. To him, one should not be allowed to change
one's religion "on a whim." He missed the elementary principle that
freedom when constrained is not it.
Such a high profile and potential landmark case would have
been a splendid and rare opportunity for him to showcase his judicial
wisdom, legal scholarship, and grasp of social realities. His authoring
the majority report indicated that he did recognize that occasion; alas
none of those qualities are reflected in his written judgment. There was
a reason – he lacked them!
His non-bench commentaries were equally mediocre. His speech
at a recent symposium honoring the late legal luminary Ahmad Ibrahim was
inappropriate as well as injudicious, if not downright irresponsible as
well. He advocated doing away with the current reliance on English
common law in favor of the Sharia. Such a suggestion would have been
appropriate from a legal scholar, and would have precipitated lively and
productive legal, political, and philosophical debates. Coming from the
Chief Justice, a man sworn to uphold the law (presumably in its current
form) his advocacy was misplaced and downright reprehensible. It would
shake the public's confidence in our laws and courts. Such wild
speculations do not reflect mature or judicial temperament.
Even Ahmad Ibrahim, an expert in our constitution as well as
Islamic laws, and whose intellect, scholarship and legal talent dwarfed
Feiruz's, had never suggested anything even remotely close.
In the end it is wholly appropriate that Feriuz's legacy, or
more correctly notoriety, would have nothing to do with his performance
on the bench. Instead he will be remembered as the judge mentioned in
the infamous "Lingam tape" of the pariah lawyer bragging of his ability
to have senior judges in his pocket. Such supreme irony!
Precedent Setting Royal Snub
Ahmad Feiruz would not have made his formal request to the Rulers for an
extension of his tenure without Abdullah first agreeing to it. In
rebuffing Feiruz, the Rulers were also brushing off Prime Minister
Abdullah. Whether Abdullah is too dense to get this none-too-subtle
message or that his advisors had "spin" it differently to him is
immaterial; it is obvious to all.
From his reactions, it was equally obvious that Abdullah was
totally unprepared for this royal rebuff. Consequently when Feiruz left,
he was automatically replaced by his number two, as per the constitution.
Once again the Prime Minister was pathetically reduced to a hapless
bystander, unable to control much less influence events around him.
Instead events had overtaken him.
The power to appoint senior judges in particular the chief
justice is one of the most important prerogatives of the chief executive.
It is the one power that he or she would not want delegated. It is also
one that should be exercised with great diligence, as its impact would
long outlast the term of the chief executive.
Obviously Abdullah does not appreciate the import of this
authority. On second thought, Abdullah has been derelict in all his
other responsibilities, so this is nothing unusual.
This Council of Rulers is no ordinary one, for among its
members is Raja Azlan Shah, the current Sultan of Perak and a former
distinguished Chief Justice. Rest assured that his brother rulers were
paying close attention to what he had to say on the matter of Feiruz.
Raja Azlan had formed his judgment on his later successor, and his
brother rulers listened.
It is one thing for the laity to pass judgment on your
professional capability, but when it is one of your peers especially one
as distinguished as Raja Azlan, then that is significant.
All these are obvious to everyone; yet we have the de facto
Law Minister Nazri arguing that the King has to abide by the advice of
the Prime Minister on this matter. By not even entertaining Feiruz's
request, the King through his brother rulers is also crudely telling
Nazri to shove it.
Whether Nazri is as dense as Abdullah in not getting this
brutal message is immaterial. What we do know is that the King has
effectively shut Nazri up. I eagerly await Nazri's response. In
particular I would like to see whether he has the strength of his
conviction to challenge the Rulers.
If Nazri and Abdullah do not challenge this precedent-setting
move by the Rulers, it would establish once and for all the operative
meaning of that seemingly innocuous clause – "royal advice" – stated so
dryly in our constitution.
Whether Ahmad Feiruz or Prime Minister Abdullah is getting the
royal shove does not interest me in the least, but when there is a
significant shift in our constitutional processes, especially in matters
of the crucial exercise of checks and balances, that should concern us
all.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment