Justice delayed must still be justice delivered — Syed Mohammed Idid

A statue of the scales of justice, symbolising the pursuit of fairness and accountability, which are themes at the heart of this opinion article on justice delayed and institutional integrity. — Freepik pic

First Published: Saturday, 12 Sep 2026 4:00 PM MYT

SEPTEMBER 12 — The Malaysian Bar President Anand Raj’s statement on the circumstances surrounding my father, Dato’ Syed Ahmad Idid, struck me not merely as a son, but as a communications practitioner and someone increasingly immersed in the responsibilities of governance.

Thirty years is a long time.

But is it ever too late to right a wrong?

I do not believe so.

Justice must not only be seen to be done. Justice must be done — and done well.

Justice may take time. Institutions may change. Governments change. Leaders come and go. 

Records gather dust.

But justice must eventually arrive, and when it does, it must be delivered with courage and clarity.

The Malaysian Bar has described what happened to my father as a “miscarriage of justice” and called upon the Government to restore his full pension, including arrears. More importantly, its statement makes a larger point: integrity must not be punished.

A statue of the scales of justice, symbolising the pursuit of fairness and accountability, which are themes at the heart of this opinion article on justice delayed and institutional integrity. — Freepik pic

That principle travels far beyond the Judiciary.

It belongs equally in the boardroom.

As I deepen my own journey into corporate governance, I increasingly see a powerful parallel between judicial responsibility and fiduciary duty.

A judge carries the enormous responsibility of administering justice independently, without fear or favour.

A director carries a different but similarly solemn responsibility: to exercise independent judgement, act in good faith, discharge fiduciary duties and protect the interests and integrity of the organisation entrusted to his or her stewardship.

The institutions are different. The gravitas of their responsibilities is comparable.

Governance is therefore not simply about compliance, board papers, policies, risk registers and ticking the right boxes.

It is about conscience under pressure.

What happens when speaking up is inconvenient?

What happens when the person raising the uncomfortable question is the lone voice in the room?

What happens when protecting institutional reputation becomes confused with protecting individuals or preserving silence?

These are not theoretical governance questions. They go to the heart of institutional integrity.

Boards should understand this particularly well.

A healthy institution does not punish the person who raises a legitimate concern. It examines the concern. It protects the integrity of the process. It allows independent judgement to operate. 

And when an institution discovers that something was wrong, good governance demands the courage to correct it.

Even years later.

Because the passage of time does not automatically convert a wrong into a right.

Nor should correcting an historical wrong be regarded as institutional weakness.

It can be one of the strongest demonstrations of institutional maturity.

That, to me, is the deeper significance of the Malaysian Bar President’s statement.

This is no longer simply about one retired judge, one pension or something that happened three decades ago.

It is about the kind of institutions Malaysia wants to build.

Institutions in which judges can act independently.

Boards can challenge management.

Employees can speak up.

Whistleblowers can raise legitimate concerns without destroying their careers.

And leaders have sufficient confidence in their institutions to acknowledge when something needs to be put right.

There is perhaps a governance lesson here for every director and every leader:

Never fear the uncomfortable truth more than you fear the consequences of ignoring it.

Justice may be delayed.

Accountability may take time.

But neither should carry an expiry date.

Because ultimately, whether in a courtroom or a boardroom, institutional trust rests on something remarkably simple:

Do what is right.

Do it without fear or favour.

And when something has gone wrong, have the courage to put it right.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.