The rot actually started a long time ago
ON Friday morning, Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid woke up to an unusual buzz in his quiet home in the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur.
It was just after Valentine’s Day but the usual lovebirds chirping and occasional vehicle engine sounds were traded with gasps of shocks and sighs by Malaysians.
The retired judge and renowned arbitrator woke up to news about allegations by Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer regarding judicial impropriety.
The headlines were crying “shocking news” but to this wise old man, there was nothing shocking about it.
The subject sounded very familiar, in fact too familiar. Flashback 23 years ago, Syed Ahmad Idid was a High Court judge who wrote beautiful judgments.
But one day in 1996, he wrote a fantastic letter about something rotten in the judiciary and was forced to resign.
He was purged for writing an anonymous letter exposing the close private and business relationship between a top judge and senior lawyer, their holidays together with each other’s family included.
The lawyer appeared very frequently before the top judge in court cases and that made the fishing expedition they had together abroad all the more fishy.
This new revelation by Hamid Sultan in his 63-page affidavit is therefore nothing new about the rot brought about by some judges.
On Valentine’s Day, his affidavit came out like a bomb with no love to spare for a top appellate judge who has since retired.
His claims in the court papers started to spread like a virus within hours.
The papers were in support of an application by lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo, daughter of the late lawyer Karpal Singh, to declare that the Chief Justice had failed to defend the integrity of the judiciary in two cases.
Hamid Sultan claimed that some top judges had been working with private parties to scam the government and that he faced pressure from these corrupt judges when he made judgments to protect the public interest.
Hamid Sultan said the scams were carried out by nominees of politicians getting into contracts with the government.
He alleged that once the government pulled out of a deal, the private parties would take the government to court to claim compensation and the apex court was perceived to be sympathetic to them.
Syed Ahmad Idid has heard of, and gone through, tough times like this before.
His complaint letter had mysteriously found its way into several government departments and then spread to the media in 1996.
Fifteen years later in 2001, Malaysians would remember that senior lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam was featured in an infamous video showing him having a phone conversation with then Chief Judge of Malaya Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Halim over the fixing of judges which eventually led to a Royal Commission of Inquiry in 2008 to investigate the issue.
A five-member panel made some suggestions on action to be taken against Lingam, former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin and several others.
But nothing has changed since then. Then in 2015, another retired judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah had, in yet another expose, revealed serious transgressions committed by Eusoff saying the latter had tried to influence a Court of Appeal judge who was about to hear the appeal of the controversial Ayer Molek Rubber Company vs Insas Bhd case in 1995.
The revelation by Vohrah actually corresponded with some of Syed Ahmad Idid’s complaints in his let- ter of 1996.
Another judge brilliantly coined the phrase “something is rotten in Denmark” in his judgment relating to the Ayer Molek case with Denmark, obviously referring to Wisma Denmark in Kuala Lumpur which then housed the Commercial Division’s high courts.
The fact that the phrase had to be concealed with an intended pun showed how dire the situation was at that time.
Syed Ahmad Idid previously shared that he had a similar experience as a Kuala Lumpur High Court judge with the Commercial Division from 1995 to 1996.
His immediate reaction to the latest expose by Hamid Sultan was a chuckle followed by this: “I say,
man. I told you so. Seems to be hereditary”.
But Syed Ahmad Idid was quick to add: “Actually, the current CJ is honest and doing all he can to improve the judiciary. He was not connected at all to the previous CJ and their activities. He has instituted several actions to ensure that no individual decides on who should hear a case. Also, he wants dissenting judgments unlike previously when all said “I concur”.
Some other retired judges feel that it was unfair to label the whole judiciary rotten when there were only a few bad apples but they all agree that a de-worming exercise is needed.
“In every organisation, there are bound to be some bad members, and it takes a comprehensive act to expel these bad apples.
“But how many will do it? That’s why you need to call for an RCI and get something started,’ said a retired judge.
Senior lawyer, retired appellate judge and Judicial Appointment Commission Commissioner Datuk Mah Weng Kwai was of the view that an RCI should be set up soonest.
Another senior lawyer Datuk Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari said most of the facts were disclosed at the Malaysian International Law Conference last year and that the Bar Council had asked the present government to set up an RCI.
Several lawyers who frequently conduct appeals at the appellate courts said they had heard such rumblings of impropriety among some judges.
“But it is courageous on the part of Hamid Sultan, while still a sitting judge of the Court of Appeal, to voice things out in the open.
“The ramifications will be far and wide,’ said a lawyer.
Others said that only an RCI could investigate to find out what happened. But based on past experiences, especially the 2001 Lingam video case controversy, will an RCI really help?
Are there other ways for the nation to know if the judge was indeed speaking the truth? Perhaps we should all wait for the court case to start first.
‘I say, man.’ I told you so. Seems to be hereditary
Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid