Malaysia: Government should reject proposal to make Attorney General chair of Bar Council

Malaysia: Government should reject proposal to make Attorney General chair of Bar Council

The Malaysian government should reject a proposal to make the Attorney General automatically the chair of the Bar Council of Malaysia, the ICJ said today.

The Malaysian Bar must remain independent and the government should not entertain this or any other measure that would compromise this independence, the ICJ says.

Yesterday, during the debate session at the Dewan Rakyat (Lower House of the Malaysian Parliament), parliamentarian Datuk Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur suggested that the Attorney General should be automatically appointed as the chairman of the Bar Council of Malaysia.

Datuk Datu Nasrun Datu Mansur made the suggestion while criticizing the Bar Council for its role in demanding greater government accountability.

“This latest proposal is just the most recent attempt by the government to silence all opposition and to weaken the rule of law,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.

“First the government weakened the independence of the judiciary, and now it is going after the lawyers who are standing up for justice and accountability,” she added.

Responding to the suggestion, Law Minister Nancy Shukri said that the government will look into this, noting that amendments need to be made to the Legal Profession Act 1976 for this measure to be adopted.

“International standards on the independence of lawyers state very clearly that governments should not interfere with the work of professional associations of lawyers like the Malaysia Bar,” said Gil.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers stipulate that lawyers have the right “to form and join self-governing professional associations to represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training, and protect their professional integrity,” the ICJ reminds.

Furthermore, the Basic Principles distinctly state that “the executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.”

“An independent and self-regulated bar association is important to safeguard the professional interests and integrity of lawyers in Malaysia,” Gil said.

“It acquires specific importance especially now in Malaysia where there have been questions regarding the way justice is being administered in the country,” she added.

The Malaysia Bar is an essential agent in the administration of justice and hence, the lawyers belonging to it play a key role in supporting and calling for law and justice sector reform in the country, the ICJ further says.

Contact:

Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org

Background:

The Malaysia Bar passed a motion last month during its 70th Annual General Assembly calling for the resignation of Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali because he summarily ended the investigation of alleged corruption by Prime Minister Najib Razak.

The Prime Minister appointed Attorney-General Apandi on 27 July 2015, in the midst of the corruption investigation.

Attorney General Apandi subsequently cleared Prime Minister Najib Razak of any criminal wrongdoing and instructed the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to close the investigations.

According to the ICJ, the motion passed by the Malaysia Bar calling for the resignation of the Attorney General was within its mandate as an independent professional association of lawyers, seeking as it did to draw attention to how administration of justice is being jeopardized right now.

The UN Basic Principles specifically recognize the right of lawyers to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights.

The UN Human Rights Council has unanimously affirmed that “an independent legal profession” is among the “essential prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy, and for ensuring that there is no discrimination in the administration of justice”. Such independence should be respected in all circumstances.

Zimbabwe: ICJ holds Judges Symposium

Zimbabwe: ICJ holds Judges Symposium

The ICJ and the Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe held the End of Term Symposium for the judiciary of Zimbabwe at the Troutbeck Inn in Nyanga, 31 March – 2 April 2016.

Chief Justice Chidyausiku in his opening remarks at the End of Term Symposium, stated that the Symposia are important because they give judges an opportunity to meet and engage with each other on various issues of interest or concern.

Additionally the purpose of the Symposium is to improve the quality of service in terms of judgments and the speedy outcome of cases.

In attendance at the Symposium were 72 delegates including judges from the Supreme Court, High Court and Labour Court, as well as representatives from the Law Society of Zimbabwe.

The programme included a joint session with all the courts in attendance, to discuss topics of judicial ethics and case management.

Ukraine: violent death of a lawyer is an attack on the legal profession

Ukraine: violent death of a lawyer is an attack on the legal profession

Today, the ICJ expressed serious concern at the apparent murder of lawyer Yury Grabovsky who was found dead on 25 March. The lawyer had been missing for two weeks and was reportedly found shot and buried near the Kiev-Odessa main route.

“The death of lawyer Yury Grabovsky must be investigated in a prompt, impartial and effective manner. Other lawyers who may be under threat should be urgently granted the necessary measures of protection”, said Temur Shakirov, ICJ Legal Adivser.

Yury Grabovsky was the managing partner of law firm “Garbovsky and Co”, as well as Deputy Chair of the High Qualification Disciplinary Commission.

He represented Aleksandr Aleksandrov, who along with Evgeniy Yerofeyev, was detained last May in the Lugansk Region in Eastern Ukraine and accused of terrorism and a number of other crimes.

The lawyer’s whereabouts had been unknown since 5 March after he had left for Odessa to stay at “Arkadiya” hotel.

He was apparently supposed to leave the hotel on 7 March but he never took his belongings from there.

On 9 March, a court hearing did not take place because the lawyer was missing.

Garbovsky’s colleagues reportedly doubted the authenticity of a post on his facebook account stated that he had left Ukraine.

On 10 March, the National Association of Lawyers of Ukraine informed the National Police that the lawyer had been missing.

The same day, the Odessa police opened a criminal case on “intentional murder”.

On 20 March, the Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine, Anatoly Matios, stated that a suspect in the organization of the disappearance of Grabovsky had been apprehended.

On Friday, 25 March, Prosecutor Matios said that Grabovsky “was killed in a violent way and finished off with a firearm” which according to the Prosecutor was a “specially planned operation.”

The lawyer’s body was found shot and buried 138 km south of Kiev after one of the suspects had reportedly disclosed the place of burial.

The lawyer is said to have had an explosive bracelet on his leg, apparently intended to prevent him from escaping. The names of the suspects have not been made public.

It is the second killing of a lawyer in Ukraine this month, and the fourth such killing since January 2015, including, lawyers Alexandr Gruzkov, Yury Ignatenko, Viktor Loiko, and now Yuri Grabovskiy.

Temur Shakirov stressed that “in order to fulfil their function lawyers must be able to act without fear and free from fear of reprisals of any kind”.

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers affirm that“[w]here the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.”

The ICJ calls on the Government of Ukraine to investigate the case and bring those responsible to justice, including both anyone who directly carried out the killing and anyone who ordered the crime.

Urgent measures to guarantee the security of lawyers should be taken, which should include effective security measures against attempts on their lives and lives of their family members.

Contact:

Róisín Pillay, Director, Europe Programme, roisin.pillay(a)icj.org

Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org

Azerbaijan: ICJ welcomes release of human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev

Azerbaijan: ICJ welcomes release of human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev

The ICJ welcomes the release of human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev today after the Supreme Court reduced and suspended his sentence and ordered his immediate release.

Intigam Aliyev, a prominent human rights lawyer and the head of the NGO Legal Education Society, had been convicted on 22 April 2015 of tax avoidance, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of power and sentenced to seven and a half years of imprisonment by a Baku Court.

A number of credible human rights organizations and international observers who have closely followed the case have stated that they consider the charges he was tried on to have been politically motivated, and that the real reason for his prosecution and conviction was repression by the Government of critical voices in civil society.

In a closed hearing, the Supreme Court reduced his sentence to five years of imprisonment and suspended its execution, after a request to this effect was made by Azerbaijan’s Prosecutor General, Zakir Garalov.

This unusual initiative follows the rejection, on 24 February, by the same Supreme Court of Intigam Aliyev’s complaint against his sentence.

“While the release of Intigam Aliyev is a positive step, the ICJ remains concerned that this decision appears to leave the underlying conviction in place despite credible reports that the charges were politically motivated,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Legal Adviser.

“If, as these allegations would suggest, Intigam Aliyev was targeted for his work as a lawyer, this would clearly violate international standards on the independence of lawyers”, said Temur Shakirov, another ICJ Legal Adviser.

Contact

Temur Shakirov, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, temur.shakirov(a)icj.org

Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, Europe Programme, masimo.frigo(a)icj.org

 

Maldives: immediately end arbitrary actions targeting judges – ICJ

Maldives: immediately end arbitrary actions targeting judges – ICJ

The Maldives must stop undermining the independence and integrity of the judiciary through arbitrary and politically motivated actions against judges, the ICJ said today.

“The ICJ visited the Maldives last month for the second time in a year, and we were dismayed to see that the Maldives government has continued to erode the rule of law and weaken the independence of the judiciary,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia.

“The government must immediately stop targeting judges and other public officials with arbitrary criminal proceedings, threats, intimidation and harassment,” he added.

On 7 February, Magistrate Judge Ahmed Nihan was arrested, along with former Prosecutor General and former Criminal Court Judge Muhthaz Muhsin, in connection with an alleged ‘forged’ arrest warrant against President Yameen.

“The arrest of a judge for issuing a warrant, a function which is well within the ordinary powers and responsibilities of the judiciary, clearly violates basic principles of judicial independence,” Narayan further said. “The fact that the alleged warrant was against the President further suggests that Judge Nihan’s arrest was politically motivated.”

“Moreover, the severity of a charge of ‘terrorism’ for such an act, even if taken at face value, cannot reasonably be viewed as proportionate to the alleged offense,” he added.

On 16 March, more than a month after his arrest, Judge Nihan was charged under sections 4(a)(1)-(2) and 5(a)(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, for attempting to unduly influence the state, attempting to create fear among the public, and attempting to forcefully disappear or hold a person hostage.

The Constitution of the Maldives does not provide immunity for the president from criminal accountability even while still in office.

The ICJ was also concerned to find during its visit that Maldivian authorities have continued to undermine the independence of the judiciary by using the threat of transfer or removal of judges as a tactic of political retribution, harassment and intimidation.

On 14 February, former Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdullah Mohamed was abruptly transferred from the Criminal Court to the Family Court following a sudden and late night meeting of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), without being given an opportunity to appear on his own behalf during the meeting.

While the JSC has given no reasons for its decision, lawyers, human rights defenders and former government officials with whom the ICJ spoke suggested that the transfer had been taken in retaliation for Judge Abdullah’s failure to remand former Prosecutor General Muhsin following his arrest.

It was also suggested by those interviewed that a further motivation for the transfer was to ensure that Judge Abdullah could not indirectly influence the three-judge bench hearing the former Vice President’s criminal case in favor of the defendant. Judge Abdullah was reported to have close ties with both defendants.

In June 2015, Judge Azmiralda Zahir, one of only three female judges in the entire Maldivian judiciary and the only woman on the High Court, was arbitrarily and unexpectedly transferred by the Supreme Court from the Malé appellate bench to the southern regional bench, a transfer that amounts to a demotion, without formal notice or opportunity to challenge her transfer.

The Supreme Court has neither established clear criteria for its decision-making process in such matters nor informed Judge Zahir of the reasons for her transfer, of which she learned through media reports, despite repeated requests by her to both the Supreme Court as well as the JSC, the ICJ says.

“President Yameen’s government must quickly take genuine steps to restore the rule of law, strengthen the independence and integrity of the judiciary and restart the democratic transition process,” said Narayan.

Contact:

 Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org

Read also:

Maldives: political crisis erodes rule of law and human rights
Maldives: arrest of Judge Ahmed Nihan further erodes judicial independence

Translate »