Justice K Muniandy said the prosecution failed to prove that Isham’s statements, made in late 2023, posed a real risk of interference in the administration of justice.
“The claim that the administration of justice was derailed or sullied by the statements does not hold water,” he said.
Muniandy also said the allegation that Isham’s statements had scandalised the judiciary appeared untrue.
Filed on Dec 28, 2023, the application to cite Isham for contempt concerned statements he allegedly made during an interview titled “Townhall for Justice: Keadilan Sebenarnya Untuk Siapa” published on Sept 30 through a Facebook account known as Malaya Post.
In an affidavit filed in support of the leave application, deputy public prosecutor Mustapha Kunyalam claimed that Isham had commented on Najib’s 1MDB and SRC International trials, and on the Federal Court’s conduct of the final appeal in the latter case.
Isham allegedly accused Justices Collin Lawrence Sequerah and Nazlan Ghazali of bias and said they should have withdrawn from hearing the cases.
Sequerah is presiding over Najib’s 1MDB trial in the High Court while Nazlan was the judge who convicted the former prime minister in the SRC case.
Both Sequerah and Nazlan now sit in the Court of Appeal.
Mustapha also said Isham had claimed that the panel of five judges, led by former chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who heard Najib’s final appeal from his conviction and sentence in the SRC case, had judged the case unfairly.
According to the affidavit, the statements made by Isham could undermine the public’s confidence in the judiciary and could be considered as interference with the administration of justice.
Muniandy ruled that the attorney-general had not discharged the burden of proof in the case before him, adding that criticism levelled by Isham against the courts’ various decisions were within reasonable limits.
He said the law of contempt was not designed to protect judges or their dignity but to ensure that the administration of justice was not obstructed.
“As judges, we must stand resilient in the face of adversity and criticism, for the scales of justice must never be swayed by external pressures,” he said.
He said that when delivering judgments, judges not only decide cases but also reinforce public trust in the judiciary, proving that even in the most emotionally charged circumstances, the pursuit of truth and application of law can, and must, prevail.
“The most effective way for the judiciary to dispel unwarranted criticism and defend its integrity against scurrilous attacks is through the delivery of judgments that are undeniably fair, just and deeply rooted in the principles of law,” he said.
Muniandy said while Article 10 of the Federal Constitution allowed for free speech, the right was not absolute and came with inherent limitations, including contempt of court.
“While freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy, its exercise must respect the vital function of the judiciary. However, (the contempt process) should be reserved for where there is real risk of undermining the administration of justice,” he added.