A PENANG based lawyer and lawmaker has filed a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) urging the agency to investigate Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s claims of judicial impropriety.

After handing over a copy of Hamid’s explosive affidavit to the Penang MACC this morning, R.S.N. Rayer said the claims made were “very shocking”.

“The affidavit exposed matters that suggested power abuse by a former chief justice or judges when they decided on cases, like in the convictions against (former opposition leader) Anwar Ibrahim and (former DAP chairman) the late Karpal Singh,” Jelutong MP Rayer said.

“There were claims of power abuse in court decisions that involved contracts signed with the government.

“These claims are very shocking to lawyers. They defile the reputation of the judiciary and raises questions of its integrity.

“All these happened under (former prime minister) Najib Razak and Barisan Nasional’s time in government, and even involved some BN ministers.

“I urge the MACC to investigate. It is imperative that the MACC look into the claims. The judges involved must be investigated and face appropriate legal action.”

Rayer also urged all lawyers nationwide to lodge reports with the authorities to push for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate Hamid’s allegations.

He said Hamid was no ordinary judge and his allegations were very detailed.

“He is famous and his court rulings are well-respected. I want to help and support him in making sure the integrity of the judiciary is preserved,” the lawmaker added.

In his affidavit filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, Hamid said the judiciary has a hit squad that made sure certain cases went the way the previous BN government wanted.

He also said certain top Federal Court judges have been aiding private parties in defrauding the government by assessing damages favourable to them.

Hamid’s shocking affidavit was in support of lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo’s application to declare that the chief justice had failed to act on two alleged incidents of judicial interference.

Hamid had also asked for a RCI to look into alleged judicial misconduct.

Human rights lawyer Siti Kasim declined to comment on the allegations by Hamid, but agreed that a RCI was needed to investigate the power abuse claims.

“It’s more urgent now that the government form a RCI as supported by the Bar Council. Only through this we can get to the truth.

“I’m sure many have questioned decisions made on high profile cases. As lawyers, we know somehow the judgments don’t sit well with the law and our constitution. Only through a RCI we will know the truth,” she told The Malaysian Insight.

Another prominent lawyer, N. Surendran, who is advisor for lawyer group Lawyers for Liberty,  also called for a RCI.

He told The Malaysian Insight that Hamid’s allegations were reflective of his own experience as a lawyer.

“Under BN, it was obvious that in cases involving political issues such as sedition, PAA (Peaceful Assembly Act) and constitutional challenges on civil liberties were decided generally in favour of the authorities or the ruling government.

“If any court finds in favour of such challenges, it was quickly reversed by the Federal Court.

“This happened in several cases I argued, such as when the Federal Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Mat Shuhaimi Shafiei case.”

Surendran represented Shuhaimi, who was then the Sri Muda assemblyman, was slapped with a sedition charge for allegedly posting seditious material on his blog at Pusat Khidmat Rakyat (People’s Service Centre) in Shah Alam in late 2010.

The appellate court unanimously ruled in November 2016 that Section 3(3) of the Sedition Act – which stated that intention of the accused was irrelevant and it was enough to prove seditious tendency – was unconstitutional.

But in January last year, the Federal Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision.

“In cases against political opponents or activists charged with sedition et cetera, the courts were in a hurry to fix dates, and were unreceptive or hostile to constitutional challenges.

“When we brought up Adam Adli’s constitutional challenge on his PAA charge to the Federal Court, then chief justice Arifin Zakaria refused to even hear the full appeal and dismissed it summarily,” Surendran said.

Former student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim and several others were charged with allegedly participating in street rallies in 2015. They filed challenges over the constitutionality of the charge to the Federal Court.

But Arifin, who led a five-man bench, ordered them to face trial first so that the sessions court could establish whether the street protests had taken place. – February 15, 2019.