In a statement today, he congratulated the four judges who were elevated to the Federal Court, and the five judges who were elevated to the Court of Appeal on Nov 26.

However, Fareed noted that several Court of Appeal judges and High Court judges, who rank higher in terms of seniority, had been bypassed for promotion for unknown reasons.

“While we do not question the abilities, capabilities or suitability of the judges who were elevated, we are concerned at the omission of the more senior judges which may invite an adverse perception of the judiciary as a whole.

“The Malaysian Bar has consistently called for the appointment and promotion of judges to be reformed.

“Clearly defined criteria for the selection process, meaningful consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and transparency and accountability of all involved in the appointments processes, are essential.

“Until such reform takes place, seniority should be the foremost criterion in any promotion exercise,” he said.

Highest possible standards of integrity

Fareed said it must naturally be assumed that each and every judge already possesses all the attributes required of a judge, as well as the highest possible standards of integrity.

“That being the case, all judges, with the rarest exceptions, should meet the criteria for promotion when their turn comes, with an additional factor being the experience that seniority brings.

“There must therefore be strong, cogent, acceptable and discernible reasons for any departure from seniority — reasons that can withstand public scrutiny.”

Fareed said the bypassing of more senior judges was a significant disservice to the judiciary because it lends to the negative inference that these judges were deemed to be less qualified or less suitable for promotion.

The uncertainty judges face about their future does little for the morale of judicial officers who have made a commitment to a career on the bench, he added.

“It also does little to dispel unnecessary and unhealthy speculation about promotions, which is unfair to those who are promoted.

“All this does not augur well for public confidence in the judiciary and the administration of justice, and would be inimical to public interest.”

Call for RCI

Fareed said the Malaysian Bar also welcomed the statement made in a press release issued by the office of the chief justice of the Federal Court on Nov 26 that the “Malaysian judiciary will not countenance any judicial interference of whatsoever nature by anyone, especially by judges in the disposal of cases before the court”.

“Judicial independence is sacrosanct, and even a mere spectre of judgments being tainted by undue pressure is cause for grave concern.

“The Malaysian Bar continues to be deeply troubled by the allegations of judicial interference that have been raised by a judge of the Court of Appeal and by a member of the Bar.

“The press release stated that the judiciary, in its internal investigations, was ‘not in a position to make a definitive finding’ (in the former case), and had to suspend its inquiry (in the latter case).

“In light of these inconclusive outcomes, we reiterate our call for a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) to be established without delay to investigate these serious assertions of judicial misconduct as well as to recommend holistic reforms to improve and strengthen the judiciary.

“It is imperative that immediate measures are taken to ensure that no manner of coercion, influence or threat is ever brought to bear on any judge.”

In August, Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer said that he was “severely reprimanded” for his dissenting judgment in the unilateral conversion case involving M Indira Gandhi, her ex-husband and their children.

He said, as a result, he was not assigned to hear cases relating to the Federal Constitution and public interest matters.

The Federal Court, however, recently said that its investigation into Hamid’s claim did not find anything concrete.

It said relevant parties who were interviewed during the probe gave “varying accounts” in a claim first made by Hamid in August.

However, the Federal Court said any attempt to reprimand a judge for his views was a serious transgression of the law and ethics.

“Any such reprimand runs contrary to the notion of independence enjoyed by every judge in the judiciary,” it said.