Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said today lawyers have a duty to not only present the facts and the law transparently and ethically, but also effectively advocate for or against a case.
In her opening address at the Selangor Bar Law Conference, Tengku Maimun emphasised that judges must decide cases based solely on the law and facts before them, without considering extraneous factors.
However, she acknowledged that the legal profession’s complexity lies in the fact that both facts and law are often open to interpretation.
She said statutes and constitutional provisions can be interpreted differently, depending on the canons of construction applied, while facts are subject to assumptions, inferences and presumptions.
“Advocacy is the tool that narrows the grey area in favour of a just and legally coherent decision,” she said.
She highlighted that lawyers must cite cases with a proper understanding of the law, avoid intentionally misleading the court with overruled propositions, and fully and frankly disclose all relevant facts — including those unfavourable to their clients.
She also said an advocate should not lose sight of the big picture.
“The effort to win one case at the expense of the law has a far larger impact on the development of the law than can be imagined.”
Tengku Maimun said from the time a case is filed until it is decided by the apex court, advocates must remain vigilant as their arguments could have far-reaching implications for the public and future cases.
“These may even become the foundation for future cases. Therefore, advocacy has a significant impact not only on the parties involved, but on the law as a whole.”
She noted that lawyers can remain adversarial “but not at the expense of justice”.
Tengku Maimun also recounted two recent Federal Court rulings that have enhanced access to justice for aggrieved parties seeking legal remedies.
“Tenuous rules such as locus standi have been relaxed, allowing almost anyone from all walks of life to initiate actions to protect an aggrieved or perceptibly aggrieved right.”
She cited the recent majority decision of the Federal Court in the case of Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid & Anor v. Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan, which re-emphasised that individuals affected by unconstitutional legislation may challenge such laws.
She also cited the recent Taman Rimba Kiara case, during which the long-standing rule on locus standi established in the case of Government of Malaysia v. Lim Kit Siang (1988) was relaxed, allowing litigants to pursue public law action related to town and country planning for parks, enjoyed by members of the public.