He said the state’s intimate involvement in the governance of the legal profession is inimical to the independence of the Bar, which is, in turn, a vital pre-condition to a true functioning democracy.
“The state should retreat from such involvement,” he said in his opening address at the International Malaysia Law Conference at a hotel here.
Thomas, a former lawyer, said at one of his meetings with the Bar Council, he had invited the office bearers to present a bill to replace the Legal Profession Act (LPA) 1976.
“If the combined talents of some 18,000 private practitioners cannot draft in quick time a new act for their own profession, what hope is there for lawmaking by others in the coming years?” he asked.
Thomas said there are sufficient practitioners in the cabinet who would be happy to pilot its passage in Parliament.
He said in the new law, there should be no role for the AG or any other state functionary.
“Your model should then be replicated by the other great professions. Each should draft its own bill with minimum input from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) until the Parliamentary draftsman begins his specialised responsibilities,” he said.
He said the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance 1947 and the LPA 1976 were drafted by lawyers and the state had little, if any, input on the provisions of the two acts as originally drafted.
“However, the LPA has been amended on numerous occasions to punish the Bar for the public positions it has taken.
“Previous governments have seen it fit for the office of the AG to be involved in many aspects of your profession, thereby making in-roads into your autonomy and independence,” he added.
On another matter, he said access to justice is critical and any legislative or executive attempt to curtail it must be rejected.
He said provisions in written law which purport to oust the jurisdiction of the courts must be repealed and he would be recommending to the government to put the necessary legislation in place.
“Pending the enactment of such law, the AGC will henceforth cease to rely on ouster clauses in any written law, and will not object to a litigant’s right to access to court to pursue his or her grievances,” he added.
Thomas said the focus would be on the merits of the complaint of a litigant rather than searching for technical and procedural objections to strike out his or her case and thereby shutting the door to a court challenge.