kheru2006 (kheru2006) wrote,
kheru2006
kheru2006

Hipokrasi Majlis Peguam a.k.a Bar Council

Hipokrasi Majlis Peguam



Malaysian Bar dalam mesyuarat agung tahunannya (AGM) pada 15 Mac 2014 telah meluluskan resolusi menghalang bekas-bekas Hakim Mahkamah untuk bertindak mewakili anak guam di mahkamah kerana tindakan ini adalah bertentangan dengan prinsip dan tradisi "by convention" Common Law.

Resolusi tersebut diluluskan berikutan cubaan Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, bekas Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk bertindak sebagai peguam dalam satu kes Perlembagaan.

Tiba-tiba apabila Gopal Sri Ram bertindak mewakili Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim di Mahkamah Persekutuan, Presiden Majlis Peguam bersikap hipokrit kerana hanya berdiam diri dengan tindakan Gopal Sri Ram dan Majlis Peguam telah gagal mematuhi resolusi yang mereka luluskan sendiri berkaitan isu ini.

Hasil daripada desakan banyak pihak termasuk kritikan daripada ahli-ahli Malaysian Bar berkaitan hipokrasi Majlis Peguam ini, selepas tiga hari berdiam diri, barulah Presiden Majlis Peguam mengeluarkan kenyataan media yang saya sifatkan sebagai kenyataan sekadar 'bagai melepaskan batuk di tangga' sahaja.

Ini kerana kenyataan lemah yang dikeluarkan oleh Presiden Majlis Peguam telah menyatakan bahawa Majlis Peguam tiada kuasa untuk menguatkuasakan resolusi AGM mereka selagi Parlimen tidak meminda Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 dan Majlis Peguam menjadikan satu keputusan mahkamah yang tidak melarang bekas hakim untuk bertindak mewakili anak guam sebagai asas untuk tidak berbuat apa-apa setiap kali melibatkan Anwar Ibrahim.

Persoalannya mengapa selepas resolusi berkenaan diluluskan, Majlis Peguam tidak bersungguh-sungguh menjelajah mengumpul tandatangan rakyat bagi mendesak Parlimen meminda Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976 seperti mana yang sedang Majlis Peguam lakukan dalam kempen mereka Mansuh Akta Hasutan seperti sekarang?

Selanjutnya mengapa ketika meluluskan resolusi AGM berkenaan, pihak Majlis Peguam tidak langsung menimbulkan isu menghormati keputusan mahkamah yang membenarkan bekas hakim untuk mewakili anak guam?

Persoalan yang lebih besar, jika Majlis Peguam konsisten bersetuju dengan apa jua keputusan mahkamah, mengapa Majlis Peguam pada 16 Oktober 2013 mengeluarkan kenyataan mengkritik keputusan Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes kalimah Allah?

Tindakan Majlis Peguam mengeluarkan kenyataan longgar dan tidak bermaya dalam isu tersebut tidak menghormati resolusi AGM mereka sendiri dan tidak seharusnya menutup hakikat bahawa sebenarnya Majlis Peguam bersikap selektif dalam melakukan atau tidak melakukan sesuatu.

Sikap hipokrasi mereka ini tidak boleh dilindungi dengan slogan mereka yang kononnya bertindak mengikut undang-undang tanpa sikap memihak dan pilih kasih.

Slogan yang lebih relevan dengan sikap selektif Majlis Peguam ini mungkin perlu diubah kepada "bertindak mengikut undang-undang dengan memihak kepada fahaman liberalisme."

Masanya telah tiba untuk rakyat bangkit menyedarkan Parlimen agar mengkaji semula penyalahgunaan kuasa-kuasa Majlis Peguam. Masanya juga telah tiba untuk 15,000 ahli Badan Peguam mengubah kepimpinan Majlis Peguam yang hanya diundi oleh 20 peratus ahli sejak 10 tahun yang lalu.


MOHD KHAIRUL AZAM AB DUL AZIZ ialah Peguam Bela dan Peguam Cara Utusan Malaysia Rencana 02 November 2014 3:19 AM

Bar Council of Malaysia i

If you dont walk the talk ,
it's probably best not to talk that you daont

Bar Council’s concern


AFTER more than two days of the ongoing appeal by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim against his conviction for sodomy, the Bar Council has finally responded to charges that it was not acting to uphold its own resolution prohibiting retired higher court judges from representing clients in a court of law. The charges arose when Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram, a former Federal Court judge, appeared on Tuesday to represent Anwar as his lead counsel. Almost immediately, there were calls by politicians, lawyers and even the general public for the Bar Council to clear the air. The silence was deafening. Yesterday, it clarified that retired judges can, according to the law, appear in court on behalf of clients. In the same statement, the Bar Council said its stance on this issue remains as stated in the earlier resolution.

There were several reasons for the Bar Council’s March 2014 resolution passed at its annual general meeting. It argued that perceptions and appearances matter, and that a fundamental principle of Malaysia’s legal system is that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. The retired judge/counsel might have occasion to refer to, criticise or invoke decisions handed down when he was a judge. This could have the effect of intimidating the Bench, and give the perception that the said retired judge/counsel and his client have an advantage over their adversaries. Even retired judges of superior courts themselves had written to the Bar Council expressing their concern and objection with this practice.

Indeed, the possibility is real and this may explain why high profile cases engage the services of the Datuk Seri. Surely his services are not cheap. Nevertheless, given the law, is not the onus on the Bench to pass judgment without fear or favour? It is the Bench that must have the wherewithal to resist a strangled psyche. Why is this then such an issue? Could it be that the man is a good lawyer because of his years of experience and that he is a feared adversary? What appears as disingenuous, though, is the contention that the public perception of the administration of justice may be affected if retired higher court judges appear in court for clients.

Alas, the fact remains that the law permits qualified, certified lawyers to appear in court to represent clients. If then the reputation of Sri Ram precedes him, then it stands to reason that Anwar would employ the former’s services. One wonders though, why knowing that its hands are tied, the Bar Council passed the resolution in the first place? In the statement, the Bar Council also brought up controversies involving the appointment of the lead prosecutor in Anwar’s appeal which, again, the Federal Court has decided is not improper. Nevertheless, the council said it was concerned that justice might not be done, or might not be perceived to be done with both these appointments. But given the Bar Council’s delayed and rather muted response in this case, does it matter?

NST Editorial  31 OCTOBER 2014 @ 8:07 AM
Subscribe

  • Reflection of current leaders

    The dramas played by the policy-maker of our country has now becoming absurdly ridiculous. Of late, Malaysians are in need of someone or…

  • March 2020 is not Ides of March

    History had made a mark in Malaysia as in March 2020, the country’s eighth prime minister took over as prime minister in order to “save…

  • Reflection of our current leaders

    I refer to ' Time to reflect on what is important' dated 3 Mar 2020. The dramas played by the policy-maker of our country has now becoming…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments