WHAT PRICE JUSTICE?

Oleh: Anil Netto

Executive committee member

21 June 2000

First it was highway tolls. Then came privatised sewerage charges. Now there are plans to impose hearing fees for civil cases in the High Court based on hourly rates ranging from RM300 to RM500. If the Cabinet approves the proposal, then litigants could end up paying the courts an average of RM12,500 for six full days of trial.


It seems that the dispensation of Justice will come at a price, if the proposal is approved. Justice will then only be available to those who can afford it. The poor will have to think twice, thrice, maybe more, before going to the courts to seek redress. As it is, we often see cases where an accused is unrepresented because he or she cannot afford a lawyer.


The emphasis seems to be on productivity. Wasn't it the Chief Justice himself who proudly proclaimed recently that productivity had improved and court revenue has now far exceeded expenditure? This is sad - the system of administration of Justice should not be reduced to a money-making concern. Justice is not a commodity to be sold at a price to the public. Neither should the public be expected to pay for the services rendered by the courts, which are already funded by taxpayers' money.


The proposed hearing fee structure was unanimously agreed to by the judges at the close of the Malaysian Council of Judges' conference on 16 June. Aliran is appalled that instead of focussing on the crisis of confidence hanging over the Judiciary, the judges chose to expedite the meting out of Justice by charging hearing fees. We have heard of the maxim 'Justice delayed is Justice denied', but isn't the reverse - Justice hurried is Justice sacrificed - also true?


Although we concede that, at times, the absence of lawyers and key witnesses frustrates the smooth flow of court hearings, it is also true that, in many cases, the written judgments are not available for months and, in some cases, for years. The absence of written judgments, along with the grounds for such judgements, makes it difficult for litigants who want to appeal a particular decision. If hearing fees are imposed, should the judges then be asked to pay penalty fees if they are the ones contributing to a delay in a trial or in delivering oral and written judgments?


Was the proposal to charge fees aimed at diverting attention away from the real issue at hand - the eroded public perception of the judiciary? Public perception has nose-dived ever since the infamous sacking of former Lord President Salleh Abas and two other Supreme Court Judges in 1988. Sadly, nothing substantive has been done to stop the slide.


Imposing hearing fees will only further damage the fast-deteriorating standing of the institutions responsible for administering justice in the country. Obtaining Justice will no longer be within the means of the poor and the marginalised. Instead it will be the prerogative and the privilege of the rich and famous. Aliran urges the Cabinet to drop this ludicrous and short-sighted proposal and concentrate instead on strengthening the independence and integrity of the Judiciary.


“SELAMATKAN RAKYAT SELAMATKAN NEGARA”
‘PROTES SAMPAI TURUN”


Sekian. Wallahu'alam dan terima kasih