ONE wonders how the existence of an independent commission to appoint and promote judges will ensure an independent judiciary, without also ensuring that the removal of judges is safeguarded.

Because, no matter how good and able a judge is, he may cease to act as one if his conduct - whatever it may be - can be a cause for removal by the authority concerned.

That is the misbehaviour benchmark which the Tun Salleh Abbas removal case has established. In calling for an apology by the government, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim is clearly saying that that benchmark is wrong and indefensible.

What needs to be done, therefore, to remedy the situation is to seek to amend Article 125(3) of the Constitution, to make it clear what the word “misbehaviour” should mean in such a manner that it would not adversely affect the judges’ function to act, because, unless he is found to be corrupt and dishonest, fairness and justice can only be served if a hypothetical arbiter has the freedom and independence to discharge his function.

In any event, let’s hope that this attempt to resuscitate again the 1988 tragedy will end in an amicable solution, since the last time it was raised with the government, it ended sadly in a dead end.

Salleh has suffered too much since that fateful event to want to go through another setback. We are talking here about the fate of a person who has the highest sense of integrity and propriety.

The other judges who suffered the same fate would surely like to see their honour and dignity restored and vindicated.

If the government feels that another Commission of Inquiry should be established to review whether a wrongdoing has been committed, so be it.

ABDUL RAZAK ABU SAMAH, Temerloh

Source: NST – April 2, 2008