Judge shocks with claim of judiciary scam

PETALING JAYA: An appellate judge has made some shocking claims in court papers exposing purported scams between certain top judges and private litigants to cheat the government.

The revelation by Court of Appeal judge Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer was contained in his 65-page affidavit filed in support of an application by the late lawyer Karpal Singh’s daughter Sangeet Kaur Deo to declare that the chief justice had failed to defend the integrity of the judiciary in two cases.

He said the scam was done by the nominees of politicians getting into contracts with the government but once the government pulled out, the private parties would take the government to court to claim for compensation.

The private parties created contracts with the government to defraud public funds and the apex court was perceived to be sympathetic to them, said Hamid.

“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 wrote in the affidavit.

He said this was illegal and to stump it, he developed the jurisprudence relating to fraud on the exchequer or entering into unfair terms with the government, which would make the contract unenforceable based on public policy grounds.

He claimed that some top judges frowned upon his move and judgments on commercial matters which supported the government.

Hamid also hinted at a top judge, whom he referred to as “ARLC”, who became a sort of a “maharajalela” (tyrant) dictating what the judges should do and write.

This was the same judge who reprimanded him as he was upset with Hamid’s jurisprudence, which prevented ARLC from helping the nominees, he said.

Hamid also claimed he had direct knowledge of judicial and constitutional misconduct in the judiciary from at least two events.

The first one being that a month before the 14th General Election, a top judge and other judges including himself met for lunch at a restaurant, when the top judge and some of the other judges were concerned that they would be removed if the opposition came to power.

“Basically, it was a confession relating to guilt,” he wrote.

The other event was after the election, when a senior judge told him there was interference in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s case decisions at the Court of Appeal, as well as at the Federal Court and in Karpal Singh’s sedition case.

He said the contents of his affidavit were prima facie to expose constitutional and judicial misconduct before and after the election, which is continuing without abate.

There were also sufficient material to purportedly say that top judges were continuing to mislead the public so as not to expose the judicial crimes, said Hamid.

“The CJ (Chief Justice) himself is not seeking RCI (Royal Commission of Inquiry) when the Bar Council has publicly demanded twice for RCI – this is one of the disappointments and regrets. In addition, a former Chief Justice has sarcastically questioned the integrity of the CJ. The CJ has not responded to it,” he wrote.

But Hamid also acknowledged that there were judges of integrity and competence in the Court of Appeal as well as at the High Court, including judicial commissioners.