CHIEF Justice Richard Malanjum’s inability to act against a top judge for alleged judicial interference because the latter had retired is “rubbish” and a poor excuse, social media users said.

They said retirement does not absolve anyone from action, calling Malanjum’s affidavit-in-reply “lame and pathetic”.

Hweiliat Law called it a weak excuse while Mala Kah described the reasons as lame and pathetic.

“What a silly excuse! Retirement does not absolve anything,” Lee Tai Wah said on Facebook.

Twitter user Kheri (@_Kheri_) was also left unimpressed by the reasoning, tweeting: “No one should be above the law!”

Facebook user Haxen Delto said the only instance in which no action could be taken is if the judge in question was dead.

“All kinds of third world crap reasons from our judiciary,” Tim Fin commented on Facebook.

Court of Appeal Justice Hamid Sultan Abu Backer had said last year that he had been reprimanded by a “top” judge for delivering a dissenting judgment in a unilateral Muslim conversion case in 2016 involving M. Indira Gandhi’s three children.

Lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo then filed an originating summons against Malajum last month, alleging that he had failed to act on alleged judicial interference in the conversion case, as well as a case involving her late father, Karpal Singh’s sedition appeal.

In the affidavit-in-reply filed by Malanjum’s office on Monday, it was 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 in Karpal’s case had retired.

Arifsetia (@arifsetia20132d) on Twitter wondered if Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had picked the wrong man to serve as chief justice.

Malanjum, formerly chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, was picked for the post in July last year by the new Pakatan Harapan federal government.

Facebook user Lionel Lim said in a sarcastic post that judges nearing the retirement age could now look at earning extra income.

“Tarnishing the judiciary can be let off without any punishment just because a judge has retired. 

“Wow… this will send the signal to all judges who are about to retire (that they can) earn extra income from now onwards,” he commented.

John NK Lau said a Royal Commission of Inquiry should be set up to investigate the matter, and that if the judge was found guilty of wrongdoing, he should be stripped of his pension.

Husin Che Ismail also panned the chief justice, remarking on how easy it was to skirt the issue.

“Just because the judge is retired? Going by that logic, action cannot be taken against retired thieves. It’s so easy to talk to escape,” he wrote on Facebook.

Twitter user Sree1957 (@ansree57) echoed the same sentiment.

“A good number of corrupt politicians and civil servants have also retired. Will or can they also go scot-free? Pls be more serious Mr Chief Justice. Where is the rule of law!!”

Facebook user Aaron Ngui questioned whether directors who misappropriate company funds would also be let off so easily after retiring.

Mavericke King said retirement was the last thing used as a defence.

“A criminal is a criminal. It does not matter whether he is retired or not. He should be charged.” – February 15, 2019.