Let the courts judge, not social media

Photo: 123rf

I HAD the privilege of listening to former chief justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat speak at a PTD (Pegawai Tadbir dan Diplomatik or Administrative and Diplomatic Officers’) Alumni gathering in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday.

She shared a message of enormous importance to every Malaysian: the independence of our judiciary must never be taken for granted.

Tengku Maimun reminded us of the importance of upholding the Federal Constitution and allowing courts to perform their constitutional role without fear or favour. Today, however, there is another “court” operating outside the courtroom: the court of public opinion.

Within minutes of an arrest, charge, or controversial incident, social media explodes with comments and accusations. People who have never seen the full evidence pronounce someone guilty or innocent. Most of the time, they don’t even wait for evidence to be gathered. By the time the actual trial begins, thousands may already have reached their own verdict.

This should concern us.

A judge cannot decide a case according to what is trending online, how many people are angry, or which side has attracted greater public sympathy. Judges must consider evidence properly placed before the court, determine whether it is admissible and reliable, hear arguments from both sides, apply the relevant law, and explain the reasons for their conclusions.

That is far more demanding than pressing “share” or “like”, or posting an angry comment. The challenge will become even greater with artificial intelligence.

We are entering an age in which photographs, voices, and videos can be manipulated with increasing sophistication. False information can travel around the world within minutes, while corrections struggle to catch up. Something that looks convincing on our phone screens may not necessarily represent the truth.

This is why greater public awareness is so important. Malaysians need to better understand the difference between information circulating outside the courtroom and evidence tested inside it.

When a judgment does not correspond with popular expectations, our immediate reaction should not automatically be that something must be wrong with the judge. There may be evidence the public has not seen, material that cannot legally be admitted, weaknesses in the prosecution’s or defence’s case, or legal principles that must be applied regardless of public sentiment.

This does not mean judges or their decisions should be beyond criticism. Judicial decisions can and should be discussed, scrutinised, and, where the law permits, appealed. A healthy democracy allows reasoned criticism of its institutions.

But there is an important difference between criticising a judgement and pressuring a judge to deliver the judgement we want.

If judges have to worry about whether their decisions will make them popular, invite online attacks, embarrass a government department, or trigger a social media storm, we risk weakening one of the fundamental safeguards of our democracy.

The consequences would eventually affect all of us. Without confidence in an independent judiciary, people may begin to believe that influence matters more than evidence, connections more than law, and that justice differs according to one’s status. When such perceptions take root, respect for the law itself begins to suffer.

We should not demand that judges give us the judgement we want. We should demand something far more important: that they remain free to give the judgement that the law and evidence require.

Ultimately, judicial independence is not simply about protecting judges. It is about protecting justice – and protecting every one of us.

DR POLA SINGH

Kuala Lumpur