Justice delayed must still be justice delivered — Syed Mohammed Idid

The Malaysian Bar recently issued a powerful statement concerning the circumstances surrounding my father, Dato' Syed Ahmad Idid, which resonated not solely as a son, but also as a practitioner of communications and an individual increasingly involved in governance matters. Thirty years may seem like an eternity, yet the author firmly believes that justice cannot be deferred indefinitely.

Justice must be both recognized and executed effectively. It may take time for justice to materialize, and institutions, governments, and leaders may evolve over time, but the fundamental principle remains: justice must ultimately be delivered with unwavering courage and clarity.

The Malaysian Bar has characterized my father's case as a "miscarriage of justice" and urged the government to restore his pension, including any arrears. More crucially, the statement emphasizes a broader principle: integrity must never be subject to punishment. This message transcends the realm of the judiciary, as it applies equally to corporate governance.

As the author delves deeper into corporate governance, they observe a striking parallel between the responsibilities of a judge and those of a director. Both bear the solemn duty of making independent judgments, acting in good faith, upholding fiduciary responsibilities, and safeguarding the organization's integrity.

However, the author underscores that governance is not merely about adherence to policies, risk assessments, or compliance. It revolves around exercising conscience under pressure. The question arises: what transpires when challenging the status quo is uncomfortable? What happens when the individual raising an uncomfortable question is the only one doing so?

What happens when safeguarding the institution's reputation becomes intertwined with protecting individuals or stifling dissent? These are not mere theoretical governance questions; they are essential to institutional integrity.

Boards must grasp this concept profoundly. A robust institution does not reprimand those who raise valid concerns. Instead, it investigates the matter, preserves the process's integrity, and encourages independent judgment. Furthermore, when an institution discovers a wrongdoing, regardless of the time elapsed, good governance necessitates the fortitude to rectify it. Even decades later, this demonstrates the institution's maturity and commitment to justice.

The author interprets the Malaysian Bar President's statement as more than just addressing a retired judge, a pension, or an incident that occurred three decades ago. It represents a reflection on the type of institutions Malaysia aspires to create. Institutions where judges can operate independently, boards can challenge management, employees can raise legitimate concerns without fear of career repercussions, and leaders have faith in their institutions to rectify errors when they arise.

For every director and leader, the author posits a vital governance lesson: do not fear the uncomfortable truth more than you fear the consequences of ignoring it. Justice may be delayed, and accountability may take time, but neither should have an expiration date. Ultimately, whether within a courtroom or a boardroom, institutional trust hinges on a simple principle: do what is right, do it without fear or favor, and when something has gone awry, have the courage to rectify it.