Its president George Varughese said potential appointees must be evaluated on their suitability in terms of their competence, skills and experience and not whether they had criticised the previous government or not.
He said in a statement: “It is unreasonable and self-defeating to allege that senior members of the Malaysian Bar should not be appointed to the Bench, based merely on an assertion that they were not vocal critics of the previous administration, or because they have advised or acted for government-linked companies.
“Similarly, members of the Malaysian Bar who have criticised positions taken by the former government, or who have expressed support for positions taken by the current government, should not enjoy preferential treatment or automatic qualification for appointments.”
Varughese said this in response to remarks made by lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla. Haniff is reported to have said on Aug 27 that the Malaysian Bar had no “moral right” to propose its members be appointed as top judges.
He, in turn, was responding to a call by Varughese two days earlier for lawyers to be appointed directly as Federal Court judges as ten of the 13 judges in the apex court are due to retire next year and it will leave a vacuum.
Varughese had said: “I want to see a 50-50 mix – 50% from the Court of Appeal and 50% from the Bar.”
Haniff had said the Bar had neither the expertise nor the moral right to demand for the appointment of private lawyers to senior posts in the courts.
“The first thing to be asked is where all these private lawyers were when Najib Razak ruled supreme through a corrupt government that tended to violate the Federal Constitution.”
Noting that many private lawyers had been made board members and advisers to GLCs, statutory bodies or even ministers, Haniff asked: “Why at that point were these private lawyers utterly silent and continued to collect legal fees from their clients for their services when they should have acted without fear or favour?”
Varughese said today the Bar “took concrete and decisive” action in the 1MDB scandal by filing on March 14, 2016, an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge the then-attorney general’s decision not to prosecute Najib and to direct the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close its investigations into the alleged transfers of large sums of money into Najib’s personal bank accounts.
“The Malaysian Bar was denied leave to commence judicial review by the High Court, and appeals to both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court were dismissed.
“Prior to that, the Malaysian Bar had strenuously and consistently condemned the then-Barisan Nasional government for interference in the 1MDB saga, including convening an extraordinary general meeting of the Bar on Sept 12, 2015.
“The Malaysian Bar will only mount a legal action once there are justifiable legal grounds. We will always act in a responsible, measured and professional manner, and we are not, and cannot be, driven by any political affiliations or motives.”
He said the appointment of senior members of the Bar to appellate courts was the norm in the Commonwealth.