KUALA LUMPUR: Judicial deliberations, which may involve disagreements and persuasive discussions, should not be confused with internal judicial interference, says an ex-chief justice.
Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said that the process of discussion and deliberation which is required under the law and which inevitably will involve disagreements and persuasions, should not be confused or equated with internal judicial interference.
“What then happens is the judge who cannot agree is encouraged to write physical judgment ... if a judge disagrees with the outcome of their appeal, then he or she delivers a dissenting judgment or a separate judgment if he or she agrees with the outcome but for separate reasons,” Tengku Maimun said in her speech at the Allianz Centre for Governance (ACG) yesterday.
“In a system of constitutional supremacy, the judiciary, like the other branches of government, is itself subject to the constraints of the Federal Constitution at all times.
“It is the Constitution that is supreme,” she said.
Tengku Maimun was the distinguished speaker at the ACG forum titled “The Sanctity of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution: Threats, Solutions and Impact on National Governance”.
Tengku Maimun explained that internal judicial independence is essential for judges to make decisions independently, free from undue influence by other judges, regardless of their rank.
“Internal judicial independence refers to a judge’s freedom to decide cases independently by applying one’s mind free from undue influence or control of other judges, particularly higher ranking or senior judges.”
Collegiality, she said, plays a central role in appellate courts, where panels of judges deliberate on cases.
This process ensures that diverse perspectives are considered, particularly when reviewing lower court judgments.
“Collegiality and conferral among judicial panel members is a central panel of the law and accountability as it ensures that every possible aspect of the case is considered,” she said.
Later during a question and answer session, she said politicians were the biggest threat to the judiciary.
“I’m sorry ... but personally I would think that the biggest threat (to the judiciary) would be the politicians,” she said adding however, that during her tenure as judge in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court, she had never encountered any political interference.
However, she acknowledged that there was a semblance of attempted interference towards the end of her tenure as the country’s top judge.
“But then again, it all depends on the judges. There may be interference left, right, centre, but if you ignore them, nothing will happen and the judiciary will remain intact and judicial independence will be upheld,” she said.
