I read with shock and dismay the news report "Bar in bid to strike out suit filed by lawyer" in the New Straits Times (June 26).
Brief facts of the report is that Boestamam Ahmad, 27, had filed a suit against the Bar Council:
- to disqualify Hendon Mohamed because she did not have a practising certificate from Feb1 to March 5 while holding office as member of the Bar Council and in consequence she should not be a council member for 2002-2003; and
The failure of the Bar Council to disqualify Hendon was a matter seriously debated for about an hour in the recent annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar which I attended. At the end of the debate, the president of the Malaysian Bar had invited members who were not happy with the council's decision to bring an action in court.
It will appear as a result of the president's representation, Boestamam had filed an action seeking an order for the Bar Council to comply with the Legal Profession Act.
The attempt by the Bar Council to strike out the suit on the grounds of procedural irregularity and that he had filed the action in April 2002 but has only served it in June seems to be frivolous and vexatious and a matter of concern to the profession. It is common knowledge that upon filing of the action the seal copy is not given immediately. It may take one or two months for it to be extracted, after which it can only be served.
Further, the legal profession is fully aware much representation and a complaint had been made by the Bar Council itself to the chief justice that matters were being struck out by the courts for non-compliance of procedure resulting in miscarriage of justice. As a result, the chief justice was magnanimous in amending the rules of court recently to state:
"In administering any of the rules herein the court or Judge shall have regard to the justice of the particular case and not only to the technical non-compliance of any of the rules herein".
It is a great pity that the Bar Council instead of making an application to the court for the matter to be heard on merits at the earliest opportunity, it is attempting to take refuge under the moribund rules on procedural technicalities and thereby disabling itself to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interest, or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour as set out in the Legal Profession Act.
The Bar Council has stood for transparency of the government, judiciary, etc., but when its own transparency is questioned by a member of the Malaysian Bar, it tries to muzzle such efforts. Why the double standards?