KPI ensures justice is swift, but shoddy
By S Rutra, Free Malaysia Today
KUALA LUMPUR: The Key Performance Indicator (KPI) was introduced for judges two years ago in order to clear backlog cases and create an efficient judicial system.
While the intention is lauded, critics, however, claimed that the KPI has taken a toll on the quality of judgments.
They reminded Chief Justice Zaki Azmi that the judiciary is unlike any other government department and the emphasis should be on quality, not quantity and speed.
Leading criminal lawyer K Kumaraendran said he agreed with Zaki that backlog cases require urgent addressing, but noted that justice cannot be hurried.
“Lately it appears that justice has been hurried, where counsels are not given enough time to address the courts,” he told FMT.
“The litigant and his lawyer must feel that they had a full and proper hearing whether they win the case or not. Only then, will the public accept that the judiciary is functioning properly,” he said.
Kumaraendran said judicial officials, be it in the lower or higher courts, should not feel pressured by the KPI requirement.
Touching on the postponement of cases in relation to the KPI, senior lawyer M Athimulam said it is the judge’s discretion to do so, but it must be done “reasonably, fairly, sensibly and courageously”.
“If lawyers or witnesses are sick, that is a good reason to postpone the case, but on many occasions, judges have insisted on going on with the trial. This is not what justice is all about,” he added.
‘Judges avoiding hearings’
Meanwhile, lawyer N Subramaniam said a Kuala Lumpur High Court judge took less than 30 minutes to read lengthy submissions from the defence and prosecution before convicting and sentencing a driving school instructer in a drug trafficking case.
He said in another civil matter involving an accident, the investigation officer could not attend due to a valid reason but the trial judge wanted the hearing to proceed.
The judge, he added, persuaded the defendant to settle for a quantum of RM40,000 although the latter would have had the opportunity to secure greater compensation in the event of a full trial.
“This clearly shows that judges are trying to avoid hearings and are more keen on closing files for their KPI,” he said.
‘This is not justice’
A senior deputy public prosecutor, who declined to be named. also voiced his concern over the matter.
He said there were instances where witnesses were not present in court with good reason but the judge refused to accept it and gave a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.
“At the slightest opportunity, the judges do this despite other witnesses being present. These people are in court at the expense of the taxpayer. This is not justice,” he lamented.
Justice, he stressed, can only prevail when all parties involved are given sufficient time.
“In some cases, judges are instructing the DPPs and counsels in open court to shorten their submissions by emphasising more on the facts of the case rather than case laws,” he added.
Complaints piling up
Commenting on the issue, Bar Council secretary George Varughese agreed that there should be some reasonable speed in the disposal of cases but cautioned against the deterioration of quality.
He said the Bar has been receiving complaints from its members that they are being pressured by some judges to settle cases.
“In the pretext of mediation, parties are being summoned into chambers by judges before being persuaded to settle their dispute. This is especially rampant in civil cases,” he added.
