Latest news with #courts
Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Times
Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity?
Railing against plans for greater secrecy in courts, the human rights barrister spoke out in frustration about the Kafkaesque nature of many closed hearings. Terrorism defendants were being asked to rebut cases against them even though they were blocked from knowing the evidence on grounds of national security. It was contrary to the principles of fairness at the heart of the British legal system, and wider use of such closed procedures would 'start to erode respect for our courts', he said. This was in 2012 and Martin Chamberlain, who was protesting against the Conservatives' controversial measures to expand the number of closed courts, was not yet a High Court judge. His words were nothing short of prescient, though, when it came to the key issues he would grapple with years later while overseeing the Afghan data leak case in a secret courtroom. This time, the Kafkaesque calamity applied to journalists rather than to terrorism defendants. The press were gagged from asking crucial questions of the Ministry of Defence to understand how seriously its blunder would endanger people's lives. And, although they could ask some questions through special advocates appointed by the court, they were prevented from knowing the answers. The Times and other media challenging the superinjunction were operating — as the late head of the judiciary, Lord Bingham, had put it about closed-evidence procedures — as if 'taking blind shots at a hidden target'. A tool that was once used mostly to protect celebrities' privacy had been used to suppress official information. And although concerns about potential misuse of superinjunctions had prompted assurances in the past that they would be applied for only to cover very short periods, that approach had been abandoned under the guise of national security. • Afghan data breach: minister apologises Parliament was also blinded, prevented from examining an issue of great public importance. The result was a lack of scrutiny that shut down the ordinary mechanisms of democracy. Chamberlain acknowledged this, and emphasised his unease about it. He concluded at first that the superinjunction, a mechanism so secret that not even its existence could be reported, was necessary because of the potential risk to thousands of people and the government's need for time to safeguard them. But he resiled from that view a year ago, concerned that it was stopping those at risk from protecting themselves. He also emphasised the need for public scrutiny of a multibillion-pound evacuation programme. It is the MoD's continued insistence that a superinjunction was still necessary, an argument that succeeded at the Court of Appeal, that requires careful scrutiny. The MoD claimed for two years that the security risk to Afghans implicated in the breach justified the unprecedented gagging order, but it was able to abandon its injunction at short notice — a complete U-turn, apparently at the flourish of a pen. It now cites a risk review concluding the Taliban probably already have the information or is unlikely to target the subjects of the leak. But it gives scant explanation of why this so drastically contradicts its long-held position that there was serious risk. This raises the question: did the risk ever truly justify the secrecy? That question gives rise in turn to many uncomfortable follow-ups. What exactly prompted this extraordinary change of heart? Where is the intelligence? Did political pressure over asylum hotels, where thousands of Afghan interpreters would surely have had to be housed, play any part in the MoD's speedy abandonment of its risk argument and in the closure of the evacuation scheme? Most uncomfortable of all: as time went on, is it possible that a legal tool put in place to protect life became a mechanism to spare the government's blushes? Even now, journalists remain gagged. A new injunction blocks the reporting of key aspects of the database leak. But until all these questions are properly addressed, accountability is severely lacking and trust is at stake. As Chamberlain himself noted back in 2012, the public have confidence in the courts only when fairness and transparency is at their heart.
New York Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Are the Courts Checking Trump — or Enabling Him?
In this episode of 'The Opinions,' the editorial director David Leonhardt talks to a conservative former federal judge, Michael McConnell, about the role of the courts in President Trump's second term. Below is a transcript of an episode of 'The Opinions.' We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on the NYT Audio app, Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts. The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity. David Leonhardt: I'm David Leonhardt, the director of the New York Times editorial board. Every week I'm having conversations to help shape the board's opinions. One thing that I find useful right now is talking with President Trump's conservative critics. They tend to be alarmed by the president's behavior, but they also tend to be more optimistic than many progressives about whether American democracy is surviving the Trump presidency. And that combination helps me and my colleagues think about where the biggest risks to our country really are. One area I've been wrestling with is the federal court system. I want to understand the extent to which the courts are acting as a check on President Trump as he tries to amass more power, or whether the courts are actually helping him amass that power. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Why Malaysia's lawyers march in sun or rain, and what to expect today
KUALA LUMPUR, July 14 — Would you brave the hot sun (or rain) and walk while wearing long-sleeved shirts and black jackets, just to defend the independence of the courts? This afternoon at 2pm, that is exactly what lawyers will be doing in Putrajaya, with plans to peacefully march for 2.6 kilometres from the country's highest courts at the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister's office. This is a rare moment in the Malaysian Bar's 78 years of history, as there has been only a handful of these marches since it was founded in 1947. Here's a quick look of the times when lawyers here walked for a cause (Note: the first one was 44 years ago and the rest were within the last 18 years) : 1981 — Walking to protest against proposed law changes On April 7, 1981, lawyers (about 100 or 200 according to different reports) walked from the Lake Club to Parliament in Kuala Lumpur to protest against proposed amendments to both the Societies Act and to the Federal Constitution. They reportedly stood outside Parliament under a heavy drizzle to hand over the Malaysian Bar's memorandum, which was addressed to the prime minister, the Cabinet, and MPs. The memorandum warned the amendments would limit the Constitutional right to freedom of association and enable the government to make laws during an Emergency without going through Parliament. 2007 — 'Walk for Justice' On September 26, 2007, lawyers (estimated to be at least over 1,000) marched from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister's Office. This was sparked by the release a week earlier of a video clip of senior lawyer VK Lingam's 2002 phone conversation with a senior judge, featuring the alleged brokering of the appointment and promotion of judges. Before the walk started, Malaysian Bar president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan told the lawyers gathered there: 'Lawyers don't walk every day, they don't walk every month, they don't even walk every year. This is the third time lawyers are walking, when lawyers walk, something is wrong. When lawyers walk, it means that we would like to see change.' It rained as lawyers waited while the Malaysian Bar's office-bearers went in to the PM's Office to hand over two memoranda to the prime minister's aide: These were about the latest crisis in the judiciary (call for Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the Lingam video clip and a call to introduce Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). The government later formed an RCI in December 2007 and also set up a JAC in early 2009. 2011 — 'Walk for Freedom' On November 29, 2011, over 1,000 people including lawyers walked from the Royal Lake Club to Parliament to object to the government's Peaceful Assembly Bill, saying that this proposed new law would put unreasonable limits on the Constitutional right to the freedom to assemble. At Parliament, the Malaysian Bar delivered its memorandum and its proposed alternative Bill to then deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong. 2014 — 'Walk for Peace and Freedom' On October 16, 2014, between 1,000 to 2,000 lawyers marched from Padang Merbok to Parliament to call for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948. At Parliament, 10 Malaysian Bar representatives delivered a memorandum to then Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Mah Siew Keong, who received it on behalf of the prime minister. The memorandum urged the government to promote building a 'fair, just, harmonious, unified, moderate and progressive Malaysia', to reject racist and religious extremism, to fulfill the promise to abolish the Sedition Act. 2022 — 'Walk for Judicial Independence' On June 17, 2022, hundreds of lawyers planned to march from Padang Merbok to Parliament, which would be the fifth 'walk' in the Malaysian Bar's history. But the police did not allow them to march to Parliament, and then Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mas Ermieyati Samsudin instead made her way to Padang Merbok to accept the Malaysian Bar's memorandum on behalf of the prime minister. The memorandum urged the government to protect the judiciary's independence and preserve public confidence in the judiciary. In March this year, the High Court ruled that the police had acted beyond its powers when it prohibited the Malaysian Bar from walking to Parliament. Hundreds of lawyers marched from Padang Merbok to Parliament on June 17, 2022, which would be the fifth 'walk' in the Malaysian Bar's history. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa Back to the question of why lawyers walk: It is one of their duties under the law. Under the Legal Profession Act 1976's Section 42(1)(a), the Malaysian Bar's purpose is to 'uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.' Today, the Malaysian Bar — which now represents 23,645 lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia — aims to end its 'Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence' with the handing over of a memorandum at the Prime Minister's office. Its memorandum will contain four points, including to have the judiciary's leadership positions filled by judges of integrity and unblemished reputation with a proven track record of quality and clear judgments; and to have multiple vacancies in the judiciary filled up quickly to prevent delays to the hearing of court cases. It will also call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate if there has been any interference with the judiciary. What's next Currently, the JAC vets and recommends candidates for judges to the prime minister, with the prime minister then providing advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Under the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the one who appoints judges in Malaysia's top courts, based on the prime minister's advice and after consulting the Conference of Rulers. The Conference of Rulers is expected to meet from July 15 to July 17 (tomorrow to Thursday). In about two weeks' time, the Malaysian Bar will hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on July 26 to discuss and possibly pass resolutions on matters such as the judiciary's independence and continuity in the judiciary's leadership, as well as vacancies and the process to appoint judges. Last week, minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said the Cabinet assures that the vacancies for the two highest-ranked posts in the judiciary will be filled according to the Federal Constitution and the relevant laws. The Prime Minister's Department's Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) last week announced that Malaysia will be carrying out preliminary research on how judges are appointed in the UK, Australia, India and Singapore, to identify suitable reforms for the country's own judicial appointments system.
CBC
5 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Why India's courts are drowning in 52 million cases
India's courts are struggling under a massive backlog of cases that would take hundreds of years to clear. CBC's South Asia correspondent Salimah Shivji explains how the problem got so bad and hears from people who have been waiting decades for justice.
Al Jazeera
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
‘Shoot their legs': Kenya's President Ruto rails against looters
'Shoot their legs': Kenya's President Ruto rails against looters NewsFeed Kenyan President William Ruto said anyone looting or vandalising businesses should be shot in their legs and dealt with by the courts afterwards. These were his first remarks after Monday's anti-government protests in which at least 31 people were killed. Video Duration 01 minutes 03 seconds 01:03 Video Duration 01 minutes 31 seconds 01:31 Video Duration 01 minutes 23 seconds 01:23 Video Duration 01 minutes 20 seconds 01:20 Video Duration 03 minutes 26 seconds 03:26 Video Duration 02 minutes 16 seconds 02:16 Video Duration 01 minutes 08 seconds 01:08
