'Zaki, it is very easy to say that you did not appoint the panel of judges. But this did not absolve you from the mess the judiciary is in.'

Former CJ Zaki disclaims role in Perak crisis

Multi Racial: Former chief justice Zaki Azmi can say what he likes. What is important is the judiciary set-up for the Nizar vs Zambry case is unfair, at least from our viewpoint.

Remember, justice should not only be fair but also be seen as fair. In the case of Nizar vs Zambry, I don't know about the former, but the latter failed miserably.

As such, the entire judiciary system that have failed the Perakians. It could very well be his number two or others who are more guilty, but it does not matter because as number 1, Zaki did not do anything about it.

1M: "‘When judges wear their robes, they are independent,' said Zaki says, trashing the notion of bias in the 2009 constitutional crisis that rocked Perak."

Zaki, that was a beautiful statement, very idealistic. We, Malaysians, definitely hope this is really so. But the reality remains that many judges, especially those promoted to the higher offices, are perceived to have their robes put on them by Umno.

With that in mind, can they be really independent?

Louis: Zaki, it is very easy to say that you did not appoint the panel of judges in the Nizar vs Zambry case. But this did not absolve you from the mess the judiciary is in now. Even though you did not appoint those panel of judges, your influence is felt by the judges.

Knowing that you were once an Umno lawyer, they will know your leaning, even though not expressed.

In any case, you should not have accepted the post as chief justice. No amount of assertions that you are neutral will ever erased the perception etched onto the minds of the public that you will not be neutral in cases involving the powers-that-be.

Pants on Fire: The fact that you told your deputy to constitute the panel shows that you too know deep inside that it is not right for you to hold that office. If not, why fear?

Because of your past links and actions, you were not fit to take up the position of chief justice in the first place.

FairMind: As the head in any organisation, he cannot claim that he is not involved when there are something wrong. The head is responsible to put matters right if they are not correct.

Saying he is not involved in a committee or panel does not absolve his responsibility to ensure his organisation is operating correctly and fairly. There might as well be no head in an organisation if no one is going to be responsible for the people under his charge.

Please retire quietly and fade away - the more you try to defend the indefensible and explain the obvious, the more bias you look.

Who Is That Masked Man?: You did not want to get involved because you knew you would be pressured for a certain decision. And therefore you will not be prosecuted for influencing decisions when this regime's rule is over.

How can you, as the chief, not want to know? Where is your responsibility? You just passed the buck to your assistant. That's not really very nice. From your tone of voice, you sounded like there was a certain apprehension towards that particular case. It's like saying, "Do what you like. I don't even care at all. And don't tell me anything."

By not knowing, you can then sleep at night and not be faulted when this case is investigated in the future. You don't have to say it outright. We can read between the lines.

If you are truly for justice, speak your mind and spill the beans. Only then you can claim that you are really a CJ.

Fair and Open: To plead non-interference only means ignorance. I have not heard of the top man not wanting to know what his no 2 is doing or the no 2 not reporting to the no 1, especially in high-profile cases like this.

Disbeliever: Zaki has a very strong excuse to counter all the allegations because he made sure that he was not directly involved. So now all he has to do is said that he had not put his hand into any of those cases - his deputy handled them.

Say what you like Zaki, remember God is watching.

Lone_star: He can deny as much as he humanly can. Even put on a show to show that he is not directly involved but there are eyes he cannot see but can see right through him. And if he has been lying then he can expect the unexpected.

Lim Chong Leong: The damage is still done because the stench of Umno infiltration into the judiciary is there. It is not whether you did it or not but whether the circumstances give rise to any reasonable suspicion that the judiciary is tainted by your appointment.

Justice need not only be done but be seen to be done. Courts must not only be fair but be seen to be fair. As CJ you don't know that? Your acceptance of the appointment is enough to taint the whole judiciary for years. You have done damage whether you like it or not.

You say you assign your no 2 to handle the job. You have not heard of vicarious liability? Maybe a law student can help you with that?

Your constant denials will only be bare denials. So sorry, no feather in your cap, old chap.

Quigonbond: Right, and we are to believe that there isn't a cult of allegiance in the judiciary for either Umno or the Perak sultan.

A judge may start off with a streak of idealism. But you never get promoted unless you join the inner circle. And once you're in the inner circle, you stop being a reformist and turn into a conformist.

We don't have to name names here. It's patently clear since the Perak constitutional crisis, who has gone over to the dark side.

Gggg: Say anything you like but the very fact that you have to defend your impartiality speaks volumes of the real situation as perceived by the rakyat.

Even for former lord president Salleh Abas, after being found guilty by the special tribunal of judges, he could walk with his head up and still command full respect from everyone.

All the rakyat wanted know is why you were brought straight to the Federal Court and then appointed as CJ. Surely the judiciary cannot be so bad that it cannot find someone suitable from among its peers.

Victor Johan: Zaki, where and when to give you credit - when your client, UEM, lost its case in the Court of Appeal or when they won that case at the Federal Court?

In case you forgot, you were interviewed by Malaysiakini , and not Utusan Malaysia . Their team will research enough before they conduct interviews, and will report it as it is - a total reverse of Utusan's agenda to twist or fabricate events.

Wira: This reminds me of the incident when the investment committee of Ministry of International Trade and Industry (Miti) awarded millions of shares to Rafidah Aziz's son-in-law.

The minister claimed she left the meeting when the committee deliberated on it, but nevertheless they awarded those shares to her family member.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .