THE judiciary was guilty of ensuring certain cases went the way the previous Barisan Nasional government wanted, revealed a Court of Appeal judge today in a shocking and explosive affidavit.

Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer said that the then top echelon of the judiciary had a special “hit squad” to form corums to sit at the higher levels so that judgments could be skewed in favour of the then government.

“I had information of many of the constitutional misconduct of judges, and for being instrumental to organise a cartel of judicial rowdies judges to sit in coram to assist the past government.

“I call them judicial rowdies judges. Some in the judiciary called it a hit squad.

“These hit squads were not a permanent coram. They would be pulled to execute the massacre of the rule of law,” he said in his 65-page affidavit sighted by The Malaysian Insight.

He gave the example of Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal at the Court of Appeal, where he said judges were regularly called up to the chambers of top judges to be briefed on what to do.

He also cited the Court of Appeal ruling, of which he had been a part of, made in then Selangor deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad’s freedom of assembly case in 2014. 

The appellate court had then ruled that it was unconstitutional to require that citizens give 10 days notice to hold a peacefully assembly, as stated in Section 9(1) of the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA).

However, a particular top judge, whom he referred to as “ARLC”, sat in the Court of Appeal in a similar case like Nik Nazmi’s appeal to overrule the effect of the first decision.

“That left two decisions; one in favour of the accused and the other in favour of the prosecution, or more accurately, the then government,” he said.

Hamid’s affidavit supports 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.

Sangeet, the daughter of the late DAP stalwart Karpal Singh, filed an originating summons against the chief justice’s office last month, alleging that he failed to act on alleged judicial interference in her father’s sedition appeal and the case involving the unilateral conversion of M. Indira Gandhi’s children.

Chief Justice Richard Malanjum is not named in the suit, which refers to the then presiding chief justice.

Hamid, in the affidavit, said there was an urgent need for a royal commission of inquiry to look into the state of the judiciary.

The Court of Appeal judge alleged judicial interference in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd, in which he made a dissenting judgment.

He said parts of his judgment 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 a 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 that the global arbitration community has taken note of,” he said.

Hamid said he gave a lot of thought about the contents of his affidavit, 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.” – February 14, 2019.