15 February 2019
Chief Registrar wants cops to probe judge’s damning claims
The Chief Registrar of the Federal Court has urged the police to investigate allegations of judicial impropriety made by Court of Appeal judge Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer in an affidavit.
In a statement today, the Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court said the Malaysian judiciary cannot address the allegations itself because of a pending court case.
“Save to say that the allegations in the affidavit against the judiciary as an institution are sweeping and consequently may have the effect of tarnishing the image of the judiciary as a whole.
“This may also well result in public confidence in the institution being undermined. That, in turn, has an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the administration of justice. The judiciary has therefore lodged a police report in respect of these allegations,” it said in a statement.
As to whether there should be a royal commission of inquiry for Justice Hamid Sultan’s allegations, the Office of the Chief Registrar said that was the federal government’s prerogative.
Judge Exposes Alleged Foul Play Behind The Court Cases Of Anwar, Karpal Singh, And More
The affidavit, which was filed by Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, reveals misconduct in the judiciary.
Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Hamid Sultan Abu Backer filed a 63-page affidavit yesterday, 14 February, alleging misconduct by top members of the judiciary
he affidavit was filed in support of the daughter of Karpal Singh, Sangeet Kaur Deo’s court application to seek a declaration that Chief Justice Richard Malanjum failed to complete investigations into cases of judicial interference.
The 63-page document revealed allegations of bullying and coercion of lawyers, constitutional conspiracy, and the purported interference of high-profile court cases in the country.
These are the highlights of court cases stated in Hamid’s affidavit, as sighted by SAYS:
1. The case of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
According to Hamid, an event was held in the Palace of Justice nearing the retirement of a Chief Justice who decided on Anwar’s case. The Chief Justice was then praised by an unnamed minister, who said “the government would not forget all the good things” he did.
One Federal Court member, who sat in Anwar’s case a day before his retirement, purportedly had an urgent meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister. Another Chief Justice, who also sat in Anwar’s case, is an Antagonist of Rule of Law and Constitution (ARLC) known for judicial interference.
Hamid also revealed that the prosecution in Anwar’s case failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and no fair trial was offered to the Prime Minister-in-waiting. However, the issue was “brushed aside” by the Court of Appeal.
Moreover, in a case of ‘constitutional conspiracy’, both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court allegedly dug for evidence to justify Anwar’s conviction.
“In addition to the five years’ sentence, Anwar’s case was in fact a judicial tragedy, which has brought shame to the integrity of our judicial process,” Hamid said.
2. The case of Karpal Singh
Following the 14th General Election, a senior Court of Appeal judge, who was involved in deciding Karpal’s sedition case, allegedly confessed to Hamid that verdict of the case was directed to be changed.
The initial verdict was in favour of Karpal. This information reportedly supports the claim by Karpal’s daughter Sangeet Kaur Deo, who reported that the late lawyer’s acquittal was asked to be reversed to conviction in 2016.
Hamid added that a female judge who refused to adhere to the ‘reversal’ lost her chance for promotion, and she was bypassed in elevation to the Federal Court. She eventually received her promotion after the 14th General Election, albeit losing seniority and some income.
“(She) was one of the most hard-working judges… In my view, the lady judge was the best Malay lady judge in our judiciary history.
3. The case of Indira Gandhi
Hamid was accused of judicial activism by ARLC after he ruled the conversion of Indira Gandhi’s children as illegal in 2016.
“He (ARLC) also threw tantrums in an uncivilised manner… His unconstitutional conduct has caused me great mental stress and still continuing,” Hamid said in the affidavit.
Malaysiakini reported in 2018 that Hamid was no longer assigned to hear cases that are constitution-related and involving public interests following Indira’s case.
4. The case of Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad
The Edge Markets reported in 2014 that current Setiawangsa Member of Parliament (MP) Nik Nazmi was charged under the Peaceful Assembly Act for organising the Black Out Rally in 2013.
However, Hamid was among the three-man bench who ruled that it was unconstitutional to require citizens to give a 10-day notice to hold a peaceful assembly.
“That judgement was a historical one in relation to peaceful assembly. Our decision was not appealable under the law,” Hamid said in the affidavit.
Hamid alleged that the decision backfired after top judges joined hands to suggest that constitutional issues must be heard by the Federal Court, instead of the Court of Appeal.
“ARLC subsequently came to sit in the Court of Appeal… to overrule the effect of our decision,” the Court of Appeal judge revealed.
“Because of the said unconstitutional overruling, there arose an opportunity to charge important opposition members such that some of them were not able to stand in the election,” Hamid added.
Hamid claimed that certain judges showed “comical” jurisprudence when it came to the cases brought by Mahathir.
“In one case brought by the current Prime Minister, one judge told me the relevant High Court judge was called by ARLC to dismiss his (Mahathir’s) application,” Hamid said.
Sin Chew Daily reported that the case Hamid was referring to is the Prime Minister’s bid to challenge the appointment of Chief Justice Tun Md Raus Sharif and Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin in 2017.
The Court of Appeal judge stressed that the judiciary must be ‘cleaned up’ to rid Malaysia of kleptocracy
“I hope and pray that the other right-thinking members of the judiciary will sincerely join hands to clean the judiciary (and) save Malaysia from kleptocracy,” Hamid said in the affidavit.
According to him, Pakatan Harapan decided to continue having the “same players” in the judiciary with “cosmetic changes” – which is not enough.
Hamid eventually called for this “judicial scandal” to be addressed in order to uphold the integrity of the rule of law.
LFL: Judge Hamid Sultan’s disclosures proves the BN regime’s long-term interference with the judiciary
Judge Hamid Sultan’s disclosures proves the BN regime’s long-term interference with the judiciary
15 February 2019
We refer to the shocking revelation by Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer confirming interference in judicial decisions.
The interference was in favour of the then BN government and its leaders, and to the detriment of opponents of the BN and the government. Amongst the cases affected were Karpal Singh’s sedition case and the Sodomy 2 case.
This disclosure cannot be taken lightly as it comes from a sitting judge of the court of appeal. It must be taken as strong evidence of serious misconduct and wrongdoing in the highest levels of our judiciary, at the behest of the BN regime.
Justice Hamid Sultan’s disclosure must therefore be acted upon.
As he has requested, a Royal Commission must be formed to look into judicial misconduct under the BN; this will afford immunity and protection to all potential witnesses including Hamid Sultan himself. The ambit of the Commission must be wide and not limited to any time period, but include the whole period of BN rule subject to availability of evidence.
In particular, the identity of the top judge referred to as ‘ARLC’ by Hamid Sultan must be established; and he must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if the RCI finds him guilty.
No stone must be left unturned, till all the truth is discovered.
It is clear that many other witnesses will come forward if an RCI is established.
Lawyers for Liberty have also collected a range of evidence of interference with subordinate court judges in politically sensitive matters. This includes an incident where a top judge interfered with a high profile ‘political’ prosecution at the Shah Alam Sessions Court during the BN rule. We believe this top judge may be the same ‘ARLC’ referred to by Justice Hamid Sultan. We are prepared to provide all information to an RCI.
The subversion and interference with the judiciary under the BN regime must be exposed to public scrutiny to ensure that there is never another attempt to make the judiciary corrupt or subservient to the government.
For long years, both Malaysians and the international community knew that the judiciary was not independent of the government, despite regular claims to the contrary by BN leaders. Now there is devastating proof supplied by Justice Hamid Sultan. All our worst suspicions are proven true.
For those from the former BN government and judiciary guilty of wrongdoing, there must be no escape or safe harbour. They must face justice.
Lawyers for Liberty
14 February 2019
There’s a 63-page affidavit purportedly affirmed by Court of Appeal Judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer circulating. The contents r explosive – detailing judicial interference & bullying by top judges against junior ones in pervasive & vile ways. Will ascertain b4 further comments.
14 February 2019
Judge’s explosive affidavit on judicial misconduct goes viral
PETALING JAYA: An affidavit filed by Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer about misconduct in the judiciary has gone viral and is causing waves in the legal fraternity.
The 65-page affidavit has been filed in support of lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo’s court application seeking a declaration that Chief Justice Richard Malanjum had failed in his duty to complete investigations into two widely publicised cases of judicial interference.
In the affidavit sighted by FMT, Hamid said it was made at the request of Sangeet and that he had done so in accordance with the oath of office he had taken to uphold the Federal Constitution.
Malanjum had earlier filed an affidavit in response to Sangeet’s suit.
Hamid is known for speaking his mind. At an international law conference in Kuala Lumpur last year, Hamid had said he was chided by a top judge, in the presence of other judges, for delivering a dissenting judgment in the Indira Gandhi unilateral conversion case.
Lawyer T Gunaseelan, when contacted, said ordinarily judges would refrain from filing such an affidavit but the peculiar circumstances prevailing warranted Hamid doing so.
Gunaseelan, who has read the document, said: “The present scenario is not so different from the situation in India where three sitting Supreme Court judges called for a press conference and divulged certain activities within the judiciary.”
The three judges had last year revealed how cases were assigned to judges in the Indian judiciary.
Gunaseelan said the filing of the affidavit, which he described as unprecedented, raised the question of whether it was proper for a sitting judge to affirm such a document.
“Irrespective of the merit of the contents, what are the consequences?” he asked.
Gunaseelan said it looked as if Hamid had no option but to affirm the affidavit although he could have done better by expressly naming the judges concerned in the document.
The senior lawyer said the revelation would seriously dent the reputation of, and confidence in, the judiciary.
“The issues raised by Hamid will be dealt with by a High Court judge (when Sangeet’s case comes up) but a Royal Commission of Inquiry will be more appropriate,” he said.
Gunaseelan said it would be interesting now that two judges had filed conflicting affidavits. This means that lawyers in the case can apply to the court to cross-examine Hamid and Malanjum.
Sangeet had filed a police report after lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla revealed that there was interference in the late Karpal Singh’s sedition appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Sangeet, who is Karpal’s daughter, said that as an interested party, she was adversely affected and entitled to all information and findings conducted by the judiciary.
She wants a declaration that the chief justice had failed in his duty to preserve and protect the integrity of the judiciary as a result of his Nov 26, 2018, media statement.
In that statement, Malanjum had said the judiciary had to suspend investigations into the allegations of judicial interference in Karpal’s sedition appeal because of an ongoing police investigation and the pending appeal before the Federal Court.
He had said the probe into Karpal’s matter could also not be carried out as the three Court of Appeal judges were still serving.
Regarding the second case, that involving Hamid’s revelation last year, Malanjum had said the investigation could not be carried out for alleged misconduct as the judge in question had retired.
Shocking! Judge claims judiciary involved in swindling public funds
In a shocking allegation, Court of Appeal Judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer has claimed that certain members of the judiciary have been aiding private parties to defraud the government.
He mentioned this in an affidavit filed today supporting lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo’s application to declare that the chief justice failed to defend the integrity and credibility of the judiciary over two alleged incidents of judicial interference.
Hamid claimed the act of defrauding was done through nominees of politicians creating contracts with the government.
Once the government reneges on the contract, he alleged, the private parties would take the government to court in order to claim compensation.
“I will give an example. The government will enter into a contract with a political nominee with no intention of honouring it.
“Subsequently, the government will terminate the contract and the nominee will sue the government for breach of contract.
“The government may record a consent judgment accepting liability and agreeing to assess damages.
“This modus operandi was to deprive the exchequer by false claims,” he claimed.
Hamid (photo), who is a sitting judge, repeatedly stressed the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to look into this matter.
In an attempt to thwart such cases, the judge said he developed jurisprudence relating to fraud on the exchequer or entering into unfair terms of an agreement with the government, which would render a contract unenforceable based on public policy grounds.
“When a contract relates to the government and a private party, no advantage of any nature can be taken by the private party even though the government agencies, in breach of rule of law, may have consented.
“In short, ordinary contractual principles in all corners will not apply. The court, to protect public interest, is obliged not to recognise such contracts even though it is in writing,” he added.
Hamid claimed that certain top judges responded with contempt towards the move.
“Many of my judgments on commercial matters which supported the government were scorned by top judges,” he added.
Hamid claimed that a particular top judge, whom he referred to as ‘ARLC,’ had attempted to embarrass him after becoming upset with his jurisprudence which prevented ‘ARLC’ from helping the nominees.
“It would have been perfectly alright if the matter had gone on appeal before his Coram and if he had written a judgement disagreeing with my jurisprudence.
“However, it was misconduct on his part to belittle me,” he added.
Hamid said ‘ARLC’ was the same person who had reprimanded him for his dissenting judgment in the unilateral conversion case of M Indira Gandhi’s children.
“It is time the Attorney-General’s Chambers looks at judgments where federal or state government or its agencies were ordered to pay money on government contracts and analyse whether it was correct in principle to do so.
“Judgments against the government for the benefit of private parties in the nature of nominees or the like must be revisited to rule out any form of corrupt practice in obtaining these judgments,” he said.
Hamid also alleged judicial interference in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd in which he had a dissenting judgment, parts of which were expunged in a manner “unprecedented in Commonwealth jurisdictions.”
He claimed that the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA), now known as the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), through “sympathetic persons,” started exerting pressure on him over the dissenting judgment.
He also claimed that certain top judges had given a lending hand to the KLRCA.
“The conduct of the judiciary on Leap Modulation itself requires an RCI with ex-judges from England to sit, to see whether a judge’s observation on public law can be expunged in the manner done by the three judges at the Federal Court.
“Leap Modulation is a judgment the global arbitration community has taken note of,” he said.
Hamid said he gave much thought about the contents of his affidavit and described it as a “lonely voice” in the judiciary.
“I hope and pray that other right-thinking members of the judiciary will sincerely join hands to clean the judiciary to save Malaysia from kleptocracy, as well as judicial rowdyism,” he added.