Nothing to fear if your conscience is clear

WHEN things go under the glare of public scrutiny, they are likely to emerge in better shape. It is like tempering a steel blade so that it is hard and tough instead of being merely hard to the point of brittleness, and thus, useless.

This is worth having in mind while considering the advice that Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria dispensed on Tuesday at the swearing in of judges elevated to the Federal and High courts.

He pointed out that in this age of information technology, the public here and abroad can quickly get their hands on a judgment.

This is good because more people can learn the reasons for judicial decisions. At the same time, the judgments are more exposed to criticism by academics, the public, journalists and politicians.

He reminded the bench that judicial ethics restrain judges from publicly defending decisions that have been criticised. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every judge to ensure that all judgments are correct and in line with applicable legal principles.

However, Arifin said judges need not be afraid of criticism as long as their decisions are within the law and are just.

“The barometer is your own conscience. If your conscience is clear, then you have nothing to fear,” he added.

He urged the judges to communicate clearly when highlighting legal issues and deciding cases, and to reach out to the public through the media so that people can get accurate information on court cases.

Arifin’s speech also serves as a reminder for us to pay more attention to the outcomes of disputes that go to court. Some of these revolve around matters that greatly affect us and how the judges rule is of significance to us.

There is usually no shortage of interest in sensational criminal trials and litigation involving prominent personalities.

But sometimes, the country’s most important legal questions are embedded in lowprofile, longrunning cases that are packed with dry details, complicated manoeuvres and obscure arguments. This is

Judges need not be afraid of criticism as long as their decisions are within the law and just. Tun Arifin Zakaria

when the public’s curiosity and the media coverage tend to fade.

It is understandable that Arifin has called on the judiciary to foster a closer relationship with the media. This certainly eases the flow of information to a broad audience.

There are other ways to heighten awareness of major courtroom developments. The website of the Federal Court’s Chief Registrar’s Office, for example, doubles up as a depository of written judgments of the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal.

A few of the judgments are accompanied by press summaries, which can help the media to swiftly digest and report key points. It would be good if there are more of these summaries and if they are promptly made available to the media.

Landmark decisions are certainly newsworthy. A few regulators have made it a standard practice to send out media statements on enforcement milestones, including pivotal courtroom wins. More agencies should do the same. It would be better still if they also announce consequential defeats, but that is perhaps expecting too much.

The legal profession has a part to play. The lawyers in the big cases are in a position to alert the media when judgments have been issued. In addition, journalists often need assistance in trying to grasp intricacies of the decisions, and they are likely to turn to the lawyers.

It takes a lot to maintain the cutting edge of justice. It is easier though when everybody recognises that much of the sharpness and sturdiness comes from sound decisions and effective communication.