Candour, Courts, and the Misuse of Safeguards

                                                             

Disclaimer: This commentary is general in nature and not related to any ongoing case. It is intended for public education and discussion of legal principles, not as commentary on the merits of any specific matter before the courts.

 

In every courtroom, whether in Washington or Kuala Lumpur, one principle stands above all others: candour to the court. Lawyers may argue fiercely, they may present facts selectively, but they cannot lie. Judges rely on counsel’s word to keep the machinery of justice running. When candor is compromised, credibility collapses.

Recently, U.S. attorney Thomas J. Crane highlighted troubling episodes in the Department of Justice. One lawyer admitted in court that a deportation violated a prior order and that he did not know why it happened. Instead of being praised for honesty, he was suspended. Another lawyer was forced to defend an absurd claim that a law firm posed a national security risk because of a former employee. Judges laughed, scolded, and ultimately ruled against the government. The lesson was clear: when candour is sacrificed for institutional convenience, the case is already lost.

 

These stories may be American, but the warning is universal. Candor and transparency are the bedrock of judicial credibility. Without them, courts lose trust in counsel, rulings tilt against clients, and public confidence erodes.

 

Malaysia’s Challenge

In Malaysia, we face our own struggles with institutional avoidance: contradictory statements, delayed meetings, and procedural objections that block legitimate complaints. Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) is one such safeguard. Designed to protect against frivolous private prosecutions, it is sometimes invoked to dismiss serious grievances before they are even heard.

 

This is where the comparative lesson bites hardest:

 

It strengthens the argument that procedural safeguards (like Section 340 CPC) should not be misused to block legitimate complaints, because candor and transparency are the bedrock of judicial credibility.

 

When authorities avoid facts or hide behind technicalities, they undermine not just individual cases but the integrity of the justice system itself. Safeguards must serve justice, not shield misconduct.

 

A Call for Reform

Malaysia must take a hard look at Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC). While safeguards are necessary to prevent frivolous private prosecutions, they must never become a shield for misconduct or a tool to silence legitimate complaints.

 

Right now, Section 340 is too easily invoked to block cases before they are even heard. That misuse erodes public trust and undermines the very credibility of our courts.

 

If candour and transparency are the bedrock of judicial credibility, then Section 340 CPC must be reformed to ensure it cannot be weaponized against truth-seekers. Reform should clarify its scope, tighten its application, and guarantee that genuine grievances are not dismissed on technical grounds.

 

Only then can Malaysia’s justice system stand firm on its foundation of candour, protect citizens from institutional avoidance, and restore confidence that the courts remain open to all who seek redress.