CJ urges judges to stop being ‘yes men’, says dissenting decisions are healthy

PUTRAJAYA, Oct 25 — Chief Justice Tan Sri Richard Malanjum has urged judges to be brave in delivering their judgments, including in giving dissenting decisions.

He said by dissenting, it encouraged independence of thought and pave the way for the healthy development of the law in future.

“Be brave and do not hesitate to state your views. There is little use in being a ‘Yes Man’. It is high-time that we scrap the ‘herd’ mentality at all levels of our society,” he said.

Malanjum said in some instances, a whiff of dissent by a judge had helped in the change of repressive laws or the enhancement of due process.

He cited an example in a habeas corpus case under the now repealed Internal Security Act (ISA) when then High Court judge (now retired Court of Appeal judge) Datuk Hishamudin Yunus, in the process of allowing the habeas corpus application, went a step further to call upon the Parliament to review the ISA.

“It turns out that his comment was not in vain because the ISA was eventually repealed,” Malanjum said.

The top judge in the judiciary said this when delivering a lecture on ‘The Role of Dissenting Judgments in the Malaysian Judicial System’ in conjunction with the 17th Professor Emeritus Ahmad Ibrahim Memorial Lecture at the International Islamic University Malaysia last week.

The text of his speech was made available to media recently.

Malanjum cited another example in a case involving Yong Teck Lee vs Harris Mohd Salleh and another, where retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk K.C.Vohrah dissented and held that Parliament had intended for decisions in respect of election matters to be appealable.

“Not long after the decision, Parliament amended the law and allowed a right of appeal to the Federal Court. Justice Vohrah was therefore correct. This would never have been known but for his dissent.” he said.

Malanjum said it also proved that the diversity of views especially from the judiciary sparked lively debate and the end result had been the betterment of the laws which was in line with the principle of check and balance.

He said dissenting judgments also provided the alternative view if not for the present, then the future of what would possibly be the law when more judges were convinced on the rationale of the dissenting judgment.

“In my view, dissenting judgments do play a huge and integral role in any judicial system. They promote judicial independence; they may spark changes in the law be it legislative or in judicial precedent; and they generally provide a diverse view on what the law should be,” he said.

Dissenting judgments arise in appellate proceedings in Court of Appeal and Federal Court where cases are heard before a panel consisting of an odd number of judges. — Bernama