The Malaysian legal system, largely inherited from the British adversarial model, offers a legal framework that stands in stark contrast to the inquisitorial approach favoured by major religions.
The difference lies in philosophy. Inquisitorial traditions are designed to seek fairness, truth, and community responsibility, while adversarial systems tend to prioritise procedure and advocacy.
This is one of the chief causes of the massive case backlogs plaguing our courts.
Malaysia is not alone. Across the Commonwealth, chief justices and judiciaries have yet to recognise the wisdom of moving away from adversarial and aristocratic procedures inherited from their former colonial masters. These outdated practices remain the primary culprits behind endless delays.
By contrast, the Panchayat system in India—a council of village elders employing inquisitorial methods—delivers fair and immediate justice. I have personally witnessed this in my ancestral village of Thopputhurai, Vedaranyam, Tamil Nadu.
That experience later became the foundation for my University‑cum‑Court Annexed Arbitration (UCCA) model, designed to clear case backlogs.
Litigants and the public want immediate solutions to their disputes and hope for instant decisions. Instead, they are subjected to the opposite: a long, convoluted process culminating in lengthy, wordy judgments issued by the trial and appellate courts.
From my observation as both lawyer and judge, the adversarial system has little to do with genuine justice or fairness. Instead, it rewards those who can present their version of the truth most convincingly.
Quite often, being “economical” with the truth can secure a win. In most cases, it becomes a contest of who can craft the more compelling narrative.
In such a scenario, an advocate’s role is to construct a persuasive narrative based on selective facts to sway the judge. Whether the narrative reflects truth or reality is secondary.
More often than not, trial judges are not subject‑matter experts and simply act as arbiters of competing narratives. On the other hand, when a trial judge is an expert in the field, truth and falsehood in both evidence and submissions can be quickly discerned.
The tragedy is that our system rarely prioritises such expertise. Instead, the Commonwealth suffers from backlogs generated by courtroom rhetoric—often pursued for financial gain.
The British aristocratic litigation procedure imposes no strict timeframe on the legal fraternity or judiciary, leaving justice perpetually delayed. Consequently, the legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” has become the defining failure of Commonwealth courts, a shameful hallmark of their dysfunction.
The UCCA model offers a way forward. By appointing subject‑matter experts of unquestionable integrity—chosen by disputing parties after a conflict arises—false rhetoric can be dismantled and backlogs eliminated. Such a system would restore credibility to the process and return justice to being timely, fair and accessible.
Through the mercy of the Almighty, the UCCA path may witness the return of the legal profession’s soul, reminding lawyers and judges alike that their calling is not to perpetuate delay or profit from complexity, but to uphold justice as a sacred trust.
In this way, the profession can recover its moral compass, aligning itself once more with the values of major religions that emphasise truth, compassion and accountability.
I trust that my three previously published articles"Is the British litigation system a failure?", "Justice not a privilege, costs not a weapon" and "Academia can rescue democracy’s spoilt child" —will together offer a definitive pathway to addressing the challenges faced across the Commonwealth, helping to restore public faith in the judiciary while saving governments billions of dollars.
Timely justice is not merely a procedural expectation, it is an unwritten constitutional right. The legal industry and the judiciary are strictly obliged to uphold it. When they fail, they risk being seen by the lay public as scammers, not guardians of justice.
I have studied this crisis for over two decades. My firm conclusion is that the legal industry and judiciary have failed in their constitutional duty to deliver timely justice, eroding public trust and undermining the very legitimacy of the courts.
Chief Justices across the Commonwealth would serve the public well by coming together to confront the backlog crisis and work toward resolution. Such gatherings must go beyond rhetoric and commit to structural reform.
The UCCA model offers them the opportunity to revamp their court systems. It can help dismantle the culture of delay, restore faith in the judiciary, and reaffirm the profession’s higher calling.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.