THE executive was not responsible for the 1988 judicial crisis, it only acted on orders from the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the late Sultan Iskandar Sultan Ismail, said former attorney-general Abu Talib Othman.

Abu Talib, who served as A-G from 1980 to 1993, said Supreme and High Court judges, led by former Lord President Salleh Abbas had triggered the crisis by complaining of interference and encroachment by the executive. 

In an audience with the King, Salleh had expressed grievances and handed over a letter containing the signatures of senior judges.

“It was the judges that caused the crisis to begin with,” Abu Talib told The Malaysian Insight. 

“The complaints were not well received by the King, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. The complaints were never initiated by the Prime Minister (Dr Mahathir Mohamad). We can only obey the King,” Abu Talib said. 

Salleh had met the King after the Federal Constitution was amended to remove the term “judicial power” from Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution, giving the courts only such judicial powers as Parliament might grant them.

Salleh was later removed from office in a tribunal and five other Supreme Court judges were suspended on orders of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. 

Abu Talib maintained that the role of the court was still intact.

“Judicial power is still vested in the court,” he said.

He also dismissed comments by retired Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram that Abu Talib had informed the government that he could not function as judges were giving him a lot of problems and the solution was to introduce legislation.

“He’s talking rubbish… That’s Sri Ram,” he said. 

At a Bar Council forum last month, Sri Ram alleged that the complaints were made after the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Public Prosecutor v Yap Peng that Abu Talib, who is also the public prosecutor, could not at his discretion apply to transfer criminal cases for trial.

Below are excerpts of the interview. 

Q: Gopal Sri Ram said you complained that judges interfered in your work. What is your response?

Abu Talib: There’s no question of me complaining. I’m not a cry-baby like him. I don’t complain. How does he know I made a complaint? Was he there when I made a complaint? He’s talking rubbish. That is Sri Ram. 

The crisis was caused by the judges themselves. And they complained of the criticism levelled against them by the executive to the King, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. They wanted a certain course of action to be taken. 

But in my view, as I advised the government, the action to be taken must be in accordance with the constitution. Hence the establishment of the tribunal and the proceeding. 

Q: The amendment to the Federal Constitution, passed in March 1988, was moved by Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Parliament. Clause 8 of the bill sought to remove judicial power from Article 121 (1) of the Federal Constitution, which the Malaysian Bar said weakened the court. Does this mean the courts have been usurped.

Abu Talib: There’s no question of taking judicial power in that amendment. Judicial power is still with the court. Otherwise, you don’t have trials there. What are you talking about?

The jurisdiction is given by law. It’s still there. Who took away the judicial power? It’s still with the court. 

Q: Doesn’t that mean the courts ultimately answer to Parliament?

Abu Talib: The judicial power is still vested in the court. The court has only jurisdiction given by law. 

And we have a recent case where the judge ruled certain provisions of the law were invalid. For example like the Lim Guan Eng’s MACC case recently, where he was asked to present his case before the trial began. It was deemed unconstitutional. 

Therefore, the court plays a very important role in the administration of the country. That’s why the constitution is supreme. Any law inconsistent with the constitution is invalid. – August 12, 2017.