KUALA LUMPUR: The judiciary must earn public confidence through integrity, transparency and accountability rather than chase popularity.
Chief Justice Tun Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said that social media had intensified scrutiny of court decisions, with judgments often condemned or praised before the public had read the legal reasoning behind them.
"Our job as judges is not to be popular. Our job is to be right," he said.
He was delivering a lecture titled "Justice on Trial: Can the Judiciary Survive the Court of Public Opinion?" to law students at Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) in Kuala Terengganu yesterday.
Wan Ahmad Farid said the distinction between public confidence, which the judiciary must earn, and public approval, which it must not pursue, was central to preserving judicial independence.
Courts were not designed to be popular, he said, as judges were sometimes required to protect unpopular defendants, uphold rights and rule against powerful interests.
"A judiciary that is always popular is probably not doing its job," he said.
He identified three major challenges facing the judiciary: public suspicion arising from past controversies, the speed and distortion of information on social media, and the tendency to judge courts by their rulings rather than the processes behind them.
Wan Ahmad Farid said the judiciary had endured difficult periods, including the 1988 crisis, when the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and several Supreme Court judges were suspended, with some later removed from office.
The 2007 Lingam video controversy further damaged public confidence after a secretly recorded video showed prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam discussing judicial appointments over the telephone.
The recording raised concerns about alleged attempts to influence the appointment and promotion of judges, prompting a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
The commission found the clip authentic and concluded that the actions of several individuals had seriously undermined the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
Wan Ahmad Farid said the judiciary must acknowledge such failures and pursue rigorous self-correction rather than conceal its weaknesses.
He also warned that social media had widened the gap between what courts decided and what the public believed they had decided.
A lengthy judgment could be reduced to a screenshot within minutes, he said, with online commentators quick to label judges heroes or villains without reading the full decision.
He urged the public to read judgments, including dissenting opinions where available, before forming an opinion.
Citing a recent High Court decision acquitting a teenager of murder on grounds of insanity, he declined to comment on the merits as the case was on appeal. However, he said the public reaction illustrated how grief and anger could shape perceptions before the court's reasoning became available.
"When a court is judged by the outcomes it produces rather than the process it follows, it has already lost the argument about its legitimacy," he said.
Wan Ahmad Farid warned that sustained online pressure could compromise judicial independence, even without direct interference, if judges became hesitant to make unpopular decisions for fear of public backlash.
He also cautioned against trial by media and social media, while adding that contempt powers must not be used to silence legitimate criticism.
They should be used with restraint and clear justification to protect fair trials, while recognising freedom of speech.
To strengthen public trust, he outlined four principles: explaining decisions in accessible language, protecting due process, defending judicial independence without personalising disputes, and ensuring genuine accountability.
Courts should publish plain-language summaries, timely judgments and clear explanations of decisions.
Judicial independence, he added, must not be mistaken for immunity from scrutiny. He said that credible ethical standards and fair, transparent complaints procedures were essential to accountability.
He also called on government and political leaders to ensure that disagreement with judicial decisions did not turn judges into enemies, while urging the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Malaysian Bar to uphold the rule of law publicly.
Wan Ahmad Farid called on future lawyers to read judgments before commenting, criticise legal reasoning rather than personalities, defend the institution even when they lost a case, and explain the law to the public without condescension.
He said criticism of judicial decisions was healthy, but attacks that undermined the institution risked weakening respect for court orders and the rule of law.
"The threat today is no longer a leaked video shouting 'correct, correct, correct'. The threat today is the democratisation and normalisation of outrage," he said.
Despite the challenges, he expressed confidence that the judiciary could withstand the court of public opinion, provided it remained committed to legality, independence and integrity.
© New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd