The deal about judicial KPIs
By Ding Jo-Ann
[email protected]
THE setting of key performance indicators (KPIs) for judges is being touted as the mechanism that will turn Malaysia’s beleaguered judiciary into an efficient, justice-dispensing system.
Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi has made improving judicial efficiency his personal mission. “I want to ensure that justice is produced fast. Clear the backlog. If I can do this, then I would be very happy,” he reportedly said shortly after taking office in October 2008.
Superficially, this seems to be cause for celebration. Judges having measurable monthly targets should theoretically result in greater efficiency. But do KPIs for judges make sense? Can the dispensation of justice be measured in this way? Is this a long-term solution that will restore the judiciary’s reputation, or is it just a cosmetic fix that is wreaking havoc on lawyers, their clients and the administration of justice?
Rushing out justice
Although KPIs look good on paper, the stories on the ground suggest that some judges are so obsessed with meeting their KPIs that they are willing to sacrifice being fair and thorough, resulting in justice being compromised.
“A judge told me my case had to be finished because of the KPI,” says one lawyer. “We had fixed specific trial dates months ago because my client, who was overseas, could only attend on those dates. [But] a few days before the trial, the judge [suddenly] insisted the witness attend one day earlier.”
When told that the witness could not be present on the new date, the judge said: “I don’t care. We have to proceed on this date. Get another witness. If not, too bad, we continue with the case.”
This lawyer and several others The Nut Graph spoke to declined to be named so as not to jeopardise ongoing cases should the judges involved hear of their complaints.
Another lawyer says that some judges are no longer giving sufficient time for proper legal research to be done for submissions after a trial is concluded. “After several days of trial, the judge wanted us to make legal submissions the very next day,” the Kuala Lumpur lawyer said. “When we protested, the judge checked whether the KPIs had been met for that month. Upon confirming that it had, then only were we given more time.”
The lawyer says that in the past, lawyers were given at least two weeks to consider the evidence and conduct further research to back up their submissions. She argues that as a result of the pressure to complete closing submissions in record-breaking time, decisions may not always be correct because they would not be based on research to rebut fresh evidence.
Worse, there have even been reports that criminal cases proceeded without the presence of the appointed defence counsel. Considering that drug-related cases at the High Court involves the possibility of the death penalty, the current efficiency drive can seriously compromise the more important need of ensuring a fair trial for the accused.
“We agree that matters should go on, without a doubt,” says Penang lawyer Jagdeep Singh Deo. “But this must be balanced with the fact that [appointed] counsels should be allowed to be present when the case goes on.”
