The Dynamics of Judicial Independence: A Comparative Study of Courts in Malaysia and Pakistan

262 Pages·2017·2.592 MB·English

by  Lorne Neudorf (auth.)

Lorne Neudorf
The Dynamics
of Judicial
Independence
A Comparative Study of Courts in
Malaysia and Pakistan
The Dynamics of Judicial Independence
Lorne Neudorf
The Dynamics of Judicial
Independence
A Comparative Study of Courts in Malaysia
and Pakistan
LorneNeudorf
FacultyofLaw
ThompsonRiversUniversity
Kamloops,Canada
ISBN978-3-319-49883-6 ISBN978-3-319-49884-3 (eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-49884-3
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016963345
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartof
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
Thisbookwasbornofafascinationwiththeideaandrationaleofanindependent
judiciary,sparkedbyaseriesofdevelopmentsinCanadathatculminatedwiththe
Supreme Court declaring judicial independence to be an unwritten constitutional
principle, capable of invalidating ordinary laws. That holding, which sharply
contrastswiththepositionintheUnitedKingdom,suggestedthatthelegalmeaning
of judicial independence could vary from one country to another, even among
countries within the same legal tradition. This comparative project expands upon
thatobservationandproposesamorenuanced,context-sensitiveunderstandingof
anindependentjudiciaryascomparedtotheprevailinguniversalistview.Itisbased
on the work I carried out during my doctoral studies in the Faculty of Law at the
UniversityofCambridge.
ThroughtwocasestudiesofMalaysiaandPakistan,thebookseekstoaddressa
number of questions about how judicial independence can take shape in different
nationallegalsystems.Asacomparativestudy,thebookisnotintendedasatreatise
onthelawsofMalaysiaorPakistan.Instead,itisaimedatpubliclawscholarswho
are interested in what can be learned from country-specific studies of courts and
how judicial independence can develop and be used in different places. In partic-
ular,itisfocusedonthosewhoareinterestedincomparativeconstitutionalismand
legal institutions. It may also be of interest to those working on law reform
initiatives, such as international and nongovernmental organizations. In terms of
the case studies, Malaysia and Pakistan were selected for a number of reasons,
including that they seemingly challenge a universalist view of judicial indepen-
dencebecauseofdifferencesbetweenthem.Thisisallthemoresurprisingastheir
legal systems have similar starting points: at the time of their independence from
the United Kingdom, both inherited English common law systems and attendant
notions of courts and judicial independence. But since that time, Malaysia and
Pakistan have gone down different paths. The book reflects upon and proposes
explanationsforthisdivergence.
Iwouldliketoacknowledgethetremendoussupportofmydoctoralsupervisor
Professor John Bell; the useful comments and suggestions offered by my two
v
vi Preface
examiners—DavidFeldmanandJavaidRehman—SophieTurenne,PaulFinn,and
membersoftheCentreforPublicLawandtheComparativeLawDiscussionGroup
in Cambridge; and the many valuable conversations with friends, family and
colleagues,includingAndrewSanger,JoeandJulietteMcIntyre,ChrisHunt,Sara
Wharton, Fernando Lusa Bordin, Sidney Richards, Alexander Lansdowne,
GeoffreyHunnisett, MatthewZedde,andJean-PierreLaporte.Aspecial thanksto
SimonLaffertyforcommentingonearlierdraftsofthechapters.ThanksalsotoOr
Regev for research assistance in locating new developments related to the case
studies.Finally,IacknowledgethegenerousfinancialsupportoftheLawFounda-
tionofBritishColumbia,theModernLawReview,ClareHall,andtheGovernment
ofAlberta,whichhelpedmakethisprojectpossible.
Kamloops,BC,Canada LorneNeudorf
September2016
Contents
1 TheProblemofJudicialIndependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1
1.2 LegalScholarship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 UniversalScholars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.3 ContextualScholars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.4 ImplicationsfortheStudy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 JudicialReformers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.2 DevelopmentBanksandDonorAgencies. . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.3 HumanRightsAdvocates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4 TheoreticalFrameworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.2 TheUniversalTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.3 ThePragmaticandContext-SensitiveTheory. . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 CaseStudyinBrief:JudicialIndependenceinEngland. . . . . . . . 33
1.5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.2 Focus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.5.3 Rationale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.5.4 Conventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.5.5 Expansion. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 36
1.5.6 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.5.7 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
1.6 MethodologyoftheStudy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
References. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 43
2 JudicialIndependenceinMalaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 47
2.1.1 CaseStudy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.1.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
vii
viii Contents
2.1.3 Structure. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 48
2.2 Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.2 HistoricalDevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.2.3 LegalHeritage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.3 PreviousScholarshipandInternalPerspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.4 InstitutionalFramework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.4.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.4.3 TheExecutive. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 65
2.4.4 TheJudiciary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.4.5 TheLegislature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.5 JurisprudenceoftheSuperiorCourts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
2.5.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.5.3 DetentionsandNationalSecurity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.5.4 1988JudicialCrisis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.5.5 TrialsofAnwarIbrahim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.5.6 UnitedNationsSpecialRapporteuronJudicial
Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.5.7 LingamTapeAffair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
2.6 ReviewofJudicialIndependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2.6.2 ContemporaryJudicialIndependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.6.3 EvolutionandContext. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.6.4 FutureDevelopmentsinMalaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 121
3 JudicialIndependenceinPakistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 125
3.1.1 CaseStudy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.1.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.1.3 Structure. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 126
3.2 Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.2.2 LegalHeritage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.3 PreviousScholarshipandInternalPerspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.4 InstitutionalFramework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.4.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.4.3 TheExecutive. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 135
3.4.4 TheJudiciary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.4.5 TheLegislature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
3.5 JurisprudenceoftheSupremeCourtI:1947–1999. . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Contents ix
3.5.2 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
3.5.3 ConstitutionalWrangling:1947–1956. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
3.5.4 The1956ConstitutionandMartialLaw. . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
3.5.5 MuhammadAyubKhan’sMilitaryGovernment:
1958–1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3.5.6 AghaMohammedYahyaKhanandtheDivision
ofPakistan:1969–1971. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
3.5.7 ZulfikarAliBhutto’sPakistan:1971–1977. . . . . . . . . . . 161
3.5.8 ZulfikarAliBhutto’sDetention,Trial,andExecution:
1977–1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3.5.9 MuhammadZiaulHaq’sMilitaryRegime:1977–1988. . . 168
3.5.10 BenazirBhuttoandNawazSharif:1988–1999. . . . . . . . 169
3.6 JudicialIndependenceaftertheFirst50Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
3.7 JurisprudenceoftheSupremeCourtII:1999–2016. . . . . . . . . . . 177
3.7.1 PervezMusharraf’sMilitaryGovernment:1999–2005. . . 177
3.7.2 JudiciaryUnderAttack:2005–2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
3.7.3 ExpandingJudicialPower:2009–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
3.8 ReviewofJudicialIndependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
3.8.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
3.8.2 ContemporaryJudicialIndependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
3.8.3 EvolutionandContext. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
3.8.4 FutureDevelopmentsinPakistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
References. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 216
4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 221
4.2 ComparingJudicialIndependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 222
4.2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
4.2.2 Malaysia. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . 223
4.2.3 Pakistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
4.2.4 England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
4.2.5 ContrastsamongMalaysia,Pakistan,andEngland. . . . . 227
4.2.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.3 TheUniversalTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.3.2 ResultsoftheCaseStudies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4.4 ThePragmaticandContext-SensitiveTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.4.2 ResultsoftheCaseStudies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
4.4.3 ComparedwiththeUniversalTheory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
4.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
4.6 BroaderImplications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
References. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 250
Table of Cases
Canada
BeauregardvCanada,[1986]2SCR56
DunsmuirvNewBrunswick,[2008]1SCR190
EdwardsvAGCanada,[1930]AC123
Ontario(AttorneyGeneral)vCanada(AttorneyGeneral),[1912]AC571
ProvincialJudgesReference,[1997]3SCR3
India
KesavanandaBharativTheStateofKerala,AIR1973SC1461
Malaysia
BankIslamMalaysiaBerhadvAdnanOmar,[1994]3CLJ735
BerthelsenvDirectorGeneralofImmigration,Malaysia,[1987]1MLJ134
CheOmarbinCheSohvPublicProsecutor,[1988]2MLJ55
ChongKimLoyvTimbalanMenteriDalamNegeri,Malaysia,[1989]3MLJ121
DanahartaUrusSdnBhdvKekatongSdnBhd,[2004]2MLJ257
Dato’SeriAnwarbinIbrahimvPublicProsecutor,[2004]2MLJ517
Dato’SeriAnwarbinIbrahimvPendakwaRaya,[2015]2MLJ293
DatukSeriAnwarbinIbrahimvUtusanMelayu(M)Bhd,[2013]3MLJ534
Datuk Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Wan Muhammad Azri bin Wan Deris, [2014]
9MLJ605
DrMichaelJeyakumarDevarajvPeguamNegaraMalaysia,[2013]2MLJ321
xi