Puad Zarkashi tells judges not to take offence at criticism as judicial immunity has its limits
Criticism of the judiciary does not necessarily mean an attempt to interfere with court matters, Umno supreme council member Datuk Mohd Puad Zarkashi said today. — Picture by Hari Anggara
Thursday, 18 Jan 2024 11:44 AM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 18 — Criticism of the judiciary does not necessarily mean an attempt to interfere with court matters, Umno supreme council member Datuk Mohd Puad Zarkashi said today
He said judges should not be offended when the judiciary is being criticised because Malaysia has freedom of speech.
“The Chief Justice should not be offended when the judiciary is being criticised.
“Judicial immunity also has its limits. So, the best way is not to remain silent, but to explain,” he said in a Facebook post this morning.
Mohd Puad, who is also the Johor state legislative assembly speaker, was responding to Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s speech last Monday in which she addressed recent criticisms against the judiciary’s decisions in certain high-profile public cases.
Mohd Puad added that judicial immunity itself is difficult to be protected by social media freedom.
In such a situation, he said it is best to just maintain the status quo.
In Malaysia, judicial immunity of judges is granted both at common law and by Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which reflects the common law principle that persons exercising judicial functions are exempt from all civil liability of any kind, in respect of anything done or said by them in their judicial capacity.
In her speech at the opening of the legal year 2024 in Putrajaya three days ago, Tengku Maimun said the prevailing criticism of the judiciary appeared to be based on wilful ignorance of its functions as well as a possible “agenda” to paint the institution as prejudicial against Islam in the country.
She said such criticism could be equated to attempts to intimidate judges when making their decisions.
While Tengku Maimun also acknowledged free speech as a democratic right, she said that it is not licence to propagate hate speech, fake news or baseless propaganda.
Thursday, 18 Jan 2024 11:44 AM MYT
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 18 — Criticism of the judiciary does not necessarily mean an attempt to interfere with court matters, Umno supreme council member Datuk Mohd Puad Zarkashi said today
He said judges should not be offended when the judiciary is being criticised because Malaysia has freedom of speech.
“The Chief Justice should not be offended when the judiciary is being criticised.
“Judicial immunity also has its limits. So, the best way is not to remain silent, but to explain,” he said in a Facebook post this morning.
Mohd Puad, who is also the Johor state legislative assembly speaker, was responding to Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat’s speech last Monday in which she addressed recent criticisms against the judiciary’s decisions in certain high-profile public cases.
Mohd Puad added that judicial immunity itself is difficult to be protected by social media freedom.
In such a situation, he said it is best to just maintain the status quo.
In Malaysia, judicial immunity of judges is granted both at common law and by Section 14 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which reflects the common law principle that persons exercising judicial functions are exempt from all civil liability of any kind, in respect of anything done or said by them in their judicial capacity.
In her speech at the opening of the legal year 2024 in Putrajaya three days ago, Tengku Maimun said the prevailing criticism of the judiciary appeared to be based on wilful ignorance of its functions as well as a possible “agenda” to paint the institution as prejudicial against Islam in the country.
She said such criticism could be equated to attempts to intimidate judges when making their decisions.
While Tengku Maimun also acknowledged free speech as a democratic right, she said that it is not licence to propagate hate speech, fake news or baseless propaganda.
Contempt of Court is an important law, to prevent public figures , especially those who have a lot of public influence to cast animosity and aversion against the Courts and Justices in particular.
ReplyDeleteThe legal merits of court judgements are , of course subject to scrutiny , as they have always been.