UPHOLDING JUSTICE WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR: A CALL FOR MUTUAL PROFESSIONALISM BETWEEN BENCH AND BAR

Abstract

This article critically examines the evolving dynamics of professionalism between the Malaysian Bar and Judiciary in light of contemporary courtroom practices. Quoting from an eBook by Andrew Harding and Amanda Whiting – “… Malaysian lawyers have developed and sustained a capacity to support and defend the core legal values of the rule of law, the independence of judiciary and the integrity of the constitution and of constitutional government, AND to speak and act, sometimes vigorously, in defence of civil and political rights.”[1] This article is written based on a review of the statutory provisions, judicial commentary and personal experience of lawyers within the courtrooms. It is hoped that the discussion here will highlight how institutional relationships between the Malaysian Bar and the Judiciary can either strengthen or weaken the integrity of legal advocacy. The principle of "upholding justice without fear or favour" is explored not merely as a statutory formulation but as a continuing and operative expectation by lawyers in their capacity as independent officers of justice. Amidst increasing procedural rigidity, evolving judicial trends and growing burdens faced by legal practitioners, this article attempts to argue for a recalibration of courtroom decorum that preserves space for respectful dissent and principled advocacy. It is further contended that judicial perspectives must evolve and shift to meet the realities of citizens’ views and those faced by legal practitioners; and this can only be meaningful where there is institutional empathy. In advancing this discussion, this article seeks to encourage continued dialogue on legal ethics, judicial accountability and the resilience of Malaysia’s legal system.