CHIEF Justice Richard Malanjum was unable to act against an unnamed “top” judge for judicial interference, as alleged by Court of Appeal justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, as the judge in question had retired.

The case was the unilateral conversion of M. Indira Gandhi’s children.

Hamid last year publicly stated that he had been reprimanded by a “top” judge for delivering a dissenting judgment in a unilateral Muslim conversion case in 2016.

An affidavit-in-reply sighted by The Malaysian Insight, which was filed on Monday by the office of the chief justice following a suit by lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo, stated that no action could be taken under the Judges Code of Ethics 2009, read with the Judges Ethics Committee Act 2010, as the judge concerned had retired.

On the claim by Hamid that he was reprimanded by a “top” judge for delivering his decision in the Indira case, Malanjum’s special officer, Mohd Aizuddin Zolkeply, in the affidavit-in-reply, said: “A definitive finding on the allegations could not be made due to the varying accounts given at the internal inquiry.

“On the allegation in respect of the alleged judicial interference in the appeal concerning the late Karpal Singh, His Lordship (Malanjum) similarly stated that no action could be taken against the ‘top’ judge under the Judges Code of Ethics, read with the Judges Ethics Committee Act, as he had retired.

“In respect of the alleged judicial interference in the appeal concerning the late Karpal, internal investigations were suspended by His Lordship in view of the ongoing police investigations into the matter, and also taking into account that the appeal concerning the late Karpal was pending in the Federal Court.

“The internal inquiry was merely suspended and not discontinued to ensure that no prejudice is caused in the ongoing police investigations, as well as the pending appeal.”

Sangeet, the daughter of the late DAP stalwart Karpal, filed an originating summons against the chief justice last month, alleging that he failed to act on alleged judicial interference in two instances: her father’s sedition appeal and the conversion case.

She said she filed the originating summons “in light of his (chief justice’s) failure thus far to investigate and complete investigations relating to two very serious allegations of judicial interference within the Malaysian judiciary”.

Malanjum is not named in Sangeet’s suit, which refers to the presiding chief justice.

Malanjum told The Malaysian Insight last month that the judiciary had suspended its probe as police had launched investigations, adding that an appeal was pending at the Federal Court in Karpal’s case.

“It is very obvious that, for a few reasons, we do not want to jeopardise the police investigations, (and we want to) ensure that there will be no prejudice in the case, aside from the appeal,” he had said in Kota Kinabalu.

Sangeet’s summons centres on allegations raised by lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla, who, in a Facebook post on August 22 last year, said the outcome of Karpal’s sedition appeal two years ago had been altered due to judicial interference by a senior judge.

Malaysian Bar president George Varughese last month called for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry to look into Sangeet’s claims.

Karpal had been charged with sedition for saying the removal of Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as menteri besar by the late Perak ruler, Sultan Azlan Shah, and the appointment of Zambry Abdul Kadir in his place, could be questioned in court.

On February 21, 2014, the high court found Karpal guilty. On May 30, 2016, his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Karpal died in a road accident in April 17, 2014.

Hamid, who made his claims at the International Malaysia Law Conference on August 16 last year, had said he was barred from hearing cases related to the federal constitution and those of public interest.

In an explosive affidavit filed yesterday in support of Sangeet’s suit, he said he will tell all in an RCI.

“The RCI should leave no stone unturned in its investigations, and make recommendations to stamp out improper practices and propose further reforms of the judiciary.” – February 15, 2019.