A RECENT uproar on social media involved the case of Tan Sri Isa Samad when he was acquitted of one charge, but not much was mentioned of the fact he has to answer nine other graft charges.
Similarly, not many of us care to read the details in the cases involving former Sabah chief minister Tan Sri Musa Aman as well as Riza Aziz, the stepson of former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Many of us, unfortunately, are not wise in the ways of the legal system, and our opinions are often challenged by decisions to acquit people of murder or robbery, or allegations of corruption, as in the cases above.
Our views of right and wrong are often more simplistic, and less nuanced than the ability of lawyers to argue on technicalities and loopholes.
Our conclusions are often based on what we get forwarded via social media, content that, be they in the form or commentary or, these days, graphics, editorialise and are laced with partisanship.
We read the headlines. The more salacious and sensational, the better. The finer print is too much of a bother. It seldom fits our narratives, especially the political ones.
They are either meant to elicit cheers, or groans. There is little attempt to explain and understand, which I suppose is understandable, but unfortunate, given the nature of our politics.
We have, in the past few years, undergone several attorneys-general, all of whom have presided or been responsible for many high-profile cases, many of which involved politicians and their friends and families from all sides of the aisle.
In all these instances, whether they are under Barisan Nasional, Pakatan Harapan or the current Perikatan Nasional government, there have been equally headline-grabbing arrests and court cases, too. There were also acquittals, some via a court decision, while others had charges dropped. Some were expected, some jaw-dropping.
In many of these cases, again, unfortunately, depending on which team the guys bat for, our outrage is selective. We ignore what serves our political needs, but get righteous at those who transgress against us.
The legal system is right to acquit someone we like, but flawed when our enemy gets away.
Recently, there have been political leaders who suggested that many people related to BN and facing charges would be freed soon, implying that the current government is resting its thumb off the scale of justice for a desired judicial outcome.
I understand that politics is the game of who can shout the loudest. However, fraught in these allegations of justice tampering is the implicit suggestion that the whole legal system is a sham.
That all the courts and judges are often subjected to political interference, and lawyers. Now, don't get us started on lawyers; the righteous among them often stand on soapboxes, their left hand brandishing the Constitution and the right hand on their hearts, but they are also quick to fall to the highest bidder.
Now, if that is the case, it must indeed be true that the system is rigged for the rich and powerful, and that we should all just retreat into our shells and hope the sky does not fall on us as we are now bereft of legal recourse.
There is no need for proof. Who could care to read the fine print, the explanations, the legal grounds, the statutes, for all the decisions?
But it is not the politicians or the government, whom we could change every few years, that suffers the most damage. While they may be the intended target, it is the judiciary that will be most affected.
This constant suggestion that judges and the courts are operating under the influence of the powerful will surely erode the veneer of impartiality and fairness in the dispensation of justice.
Suggestions that they would do the bidding of others could plant ideas in our heads — was it like that before? Were all past court decisions, big or small, arrived at not via the evaluation of evidence and arguments and the interpretation of the law?
Our institutions should not be casualties in the battle for political supremacy. The proverbial political loose lips may sink the ships of the judiciary, security, and public services. The unintended targets may suffer more from careless talk.
A tarnished judiciary will not suddenly regain its gleam with a change in the government. The constant rant and haranguing of the judiciary, directly or otherwise, will sooner or later infuse in our consciousness a suspicion of everything is not right with our courts, judges and lawyers.
Now if that happens, no one benefits. When institutions are mocked and ridiculed as part of political strategy, it will be a long way back for us. Politicians, in their anger and outrage, may need to consider this.
The legal system as the arbiter of what is right or wrong cannot be allowed to be undermined by political exigencies.
The writer, a former NSTP group managing editor, is now a social media adviser
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times