Reason cited untenable.
Lawyers for Liberty co-founder Latheefa Koya has criticised Acting Chief Justice Hasnah Hashim’s refusal to adjourn court cases on July 14 to facilitate the Malaysian Bar’s planned march, calling the decision unacceptable.
Hasnah had cited the inconvenience to witnesses and officers who had already made preparations for hearings. Latheefa said this was not a valid justification.
“It is by no means a good reason to reject the Bar’s request. Adjournments of this nature have been sought on many occasions before by the Bar or the Attorney-General’s Chambers on various grounds, and have been routinely granted,” she said in a statement today.
“Hence, surely the adjournment requested should have been allowed in this matter, which involves the critical question of judicial independence in this country.”
Latheefa, a former MACC chief commissioner, said the refusal also unjustifiably restricted the Bar’s constitutional right to assemble.
The Malaysian Bar’s “Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence” is scheduled for next Monday. The march will start at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya and end at the Prime Minister’s Office, where the Bar will deliver a memorandum outlining four key demands:
- Filling top judicial vacancies
- Releasing minutes of the recent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) meeting
- Establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into allegations of judicial interference
- Addressing the overall shortage of judges
The march comes amid heightened concern over alleged interference in judicial appointments and claims that a Federal Court judge was involved in judicial meddling.
The Bar had sent a letter to Hasnah on 8 July seeking adjournments for court cases on the day of the march. The request was rejected the same day.
Latheefa said the decision undermined the long-standing relationship of courtesy and cooperation between the judiciary and the Bar.
“The Malaysian Bar is a statutory body empowered under Section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ‘to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interest or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour’,” she said.
“Integral to the objectives under Section 42(1)(a) is the duty to uphold judicial independence and impartiality.
“In view of these statutory objectives, the Acting Chief Justice should have done everything in her power to facilitate the march by the Malaysian Bar, including allowing the adjournment request.”