Wednesday 28 October 2009
CJ on judicial independence and judicial review
Addressing an often-raised accusation of executive interference in the judiciary here, he told his audience of lawyers: ‘It is not an oath to protect and defend the President, the legislature or the executive; it is an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.’
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
CJ on judicial independence and judicial review
28 October 2009
The Constitution confers judicial power with the judiciary and entrenches it as an independent arm of Government, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said yesterday.
Every Supreme Court judge takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution before assuming office, he said.
Addressing an often-raised accusation of executive interference in the judiciary here, he told his audience of lawyers: ‘It is not an oath to protect and defend the President, the legislature or the executive; it is an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.’
He also said that judges’ pay and tenure were protected, and that a Supreme Court judge could only be removed by the decision of a panel of not less than five of his peers.
Given these constitutional protections, he said any allegations of a lack of judicial independence have to relate to the judges as individuals.
There are 15 Supreme Court judges and three recently appointed judicial commissioners, who serve for specific periods.
‘This means that any such allegations would have to be referable to one, some, or all of the 18,’ he said.
His remarks on judicial independence came in his keynote speech to the New York State Bar Association International Section, which is meeting here this week.
Allegations that Singapore’s judiciary lacks independence have been made from time to time by groups and individuals, including the US State Department in its 2008 Human Rights Report.
‘What is the basis of these allegations? From what I have read, they consist of bare and recycled reports about ‘executive influence over the judiciary’, whatever that means,’ he said, using a term in the State Department’s report.
‘Some are based on the courts deciding in favour of government ministers in defamation cases against opposition politicians and the foreign media.
‘Commonwealth judiciaries like ours have a common tradition that judges do not defend their judgments in public. They let their judgments and the reasons for their decisions speak for themselves. This is where I will leave this particular issue.’
In his speech to some 200 local and international lawyers, he also spoke on judicial review - the power of judges to decide if something is allowed under the Constitution.
‘The courts have the power to review laws and executive acts to determine whether they are unconstitutional. They also have the power to review executive acts to determine whether they are contrary to law. So long as the power of judicial review exists, the rule of law exists.’
Any aggrieved person could bring an action against the state to right a wrong done to him or her, he added.
As for laws on detention without trial, a common complaint was that these were arbitrary, he said, but explained: ‘As a matter of law, they are not arbitrary laws in the sense that any detention order made under these laws is subject to judicial review, and the courts will determine whether it is made in accordance with the law.’
Any detainee could also avail himself to habeas corpus - the right to be produced in court to justify detention.
‘There is, however, a complaint that detention orders made on national security grounds can be reviewed only on procedural and not on substantive grounds,’ he noted. ‘The complaint here is not the lack of the rule of law, but about a so-called democratic deficit. The complaint is that the law may be abused for political purposes.’
Post a Comment