Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.795027
Title: Judicial accountability : a study of Malaysia
Author: Jalil, Faridah
Awarding Body: University of Warwick
Current Institution: University of Warwick
Date of Award: 2007
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This study aims to look into the practice of judicial accountability in Malaysia and at the same time contributes to the current debate calling for judicial accountability in political trials. The thesis investigates the nature of accountability on the part of the judiciary via court structure and jurisdiction, manner of appointment of judges, removal and discipline and decision-making which is named 'adjudicative accountability'. Evaluation of adjudicative accountability is conducted in cases tried under preventive detention and security law, and criminal prosecution to eliminate political opposition involving Anwar Ibrahim, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. The study has six chapters. The first chapter deals with the concept of judicial accountability, both theoretically and conceptually. The second chapter discusses the evolution of the concept of judicial independence in the judiciary and the position of judicial power under the constitution. It also evaluates the process of appointment and removal of Malaysian judges. The discussion of judicial accountability begins in this chapter. Chapter Three and Chapter Four look into adjudicative accountability, beginning with Chapter Three, which discusses the development of preventive detention and security law in Malaysia and the judicial approach in dealing with such cases. Chapter Four focuses on the trial of Anwar Ibrahim and comprehensive examination is conducted of the dilemma of the judiciary when having to try a case arising out of a political vendetta. Chapter Five looks at the mechanisms of supervising judicial conduct that comprise the code of ethics, parliamentary discussion and public intervention. The final chapter identifies the judiciary as accountable to the executive, compared with other forms of accountability, and offers suggestions on how to minimise executive domination and make judges accountable to the law as well as to the public.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia ; Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, Malaysia
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.795027  DOI: Not available
Keywords: KT Asia and Pacific
Share: