The Malaysian Bar’s push for a judicial review is rooted in the belief that accountability is a cornerstone of a healthy justice system. By seeking to challenge the Pardons Board, the Bar is not attacking the institution of the monarchy, but rather asserting that any body exercising public power must be subject to the rule of law. This perspective argues that when a board makes a decision that significantly alters a high-profile criminal sentence, the public deserves to know that the process was conducted fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law.
Advocates for this view point out that the law should not remain stagnant and that the courts have a duty to interpret the constitution in a way that reflects modern standards of governance. They argue that the threshold for granting leave for a judicial review is intentionally low to ensure that matters of public interest can be properly ventilated in court. By shutting the doors of the court, the judiciary risks creating a perception that certain decisions are immune to scrutiny, which can erode public trust in the legal system and the principle that no one is above the law.
Ultimately, this perspective emphasizes that the Pardons Board is an administrative body whose functions should be transparent. If the board’s decisions are shielded from any form of oversight, there is no mechanism to ensure that the power is not being used arbitrarily. For the Bar, the goal is to ensure that the legal system remains robust and that the exercise of power—no matter how high the office—is always accountable to the people and the principles of justice.