CORRUPT judges were not the sole culprits in schemes to defraud the government as they were abetted by dishonest legal representatives, said lawyers.

There are also suspicions of cronyism within the judiciary when it came to the selection and promotion of judges, they said.

The lawyers told The Malaysian Insight that there was no quick fix to the problem and that several measures must immediately be taken to get to the root of it.

Lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the problem does not only lie with judges but also with several lawyers.

“Lawyers have also played their part in the rot. There’s no way that the judiciary can (defraud the government) without the other party appearing in  court,” Haniff told The Malaysian Insight.

“So if there’s any wrongdoing, it is the lawyers of the court who (participated). Members of the Bar should be embarrassed.

Haniff said the crux of the problem was that here was no separation of powers between the cabinet, the judiciary and parliament.

He said people fail to realise that each and every branch needs to be independent. 

“If not everybody will then think they need to help each other out to ensure that the system doesn’t change. That’s when the system becomes very dirty,” said Haniff, who is a lawyer for Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and recently appointed chairman of the Penang Regional Development Authority.   

He was commenting on the affidavit on Thursday by Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer where he accused Federal Court judges of aiding private parties to defraud the government by assessing damages favourable to them.

The affidavit was in support of 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 incidences of judicial interference - her late father, Karpal Singh’s sedition appeal and the conversion of Indira Gandhi’s three children.

Hamid gave the example of how the government would enter into a contract with a political nominee with no intention of honouring it. Subsequently, the government would terminate the contract and the nominee would sue the government for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal judge said the government may record a consent judgment accepting liability and agreeing to assess damage. This modus operandi was going on directly to deprive the exchequer by false claims.

Following the shocking affidavit, there were calls for the government to set upa A Royal Commission of Inquiry to cleanup the judiciary. 

Haniff, however, there was no quick fix for this problem.

He said what was needed now was a special task force to look into claims of judicial impropriety. 

“It is the only way this can be resolved. A task force will allow all stakeholders - the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, lawyers, police, MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) to make complaints or statements.

“At the end, this task force must sift through all these statements and make a decision on which complaints are worth pursuing through a RCI.”

“The findings of a RCI may lead to laws being amended, criminal action against retired judges or any member of the three branches of government.”

“If the recommendation calls for the removal of sitting judges, then a tribunal would need to be called for,” he added.

In a statement released by the Palace of Justice yesterday evening, it stated that calls for a RCI would be decided by the government.

The statement also said that a police report was lodged against the allegations of judicial impropriety contained in the affidavit affirmed by Hamid Sultan to preserve public confidence in the institution.

Meanwhile, National Human Rights Society (Hakam) secretary-general Lim Wei Jiet said Hamid’s affidavit pointed to the serious problem of cronyism when it came to the selection and promotion of judges, where there appears to be no diversity and a monopoly by judges who would decide in a pro-government fashion.

“The allegation by Hamid was that judges from the same universities or from the civil service were promoted over and above judges from other universities or from private practice. 

“This was allegedly rampant, according to the affidavit. It’s very damaging if it’s true, because it means there’s cronyism within the judiciary,” Lim told The Malaysian Insight.
 
Lim said that the appointments process, as alleged by Hamid, would have meant that judges would be made to decide on their rulings in a certain way if they hoped to be promoted and climb the judicial hierarchy.

“In all fairness, this is still only a claim by one party. An independent inquiry needs to be carried out to ascertain the truth,” he said, adding that members of the legal community were still in shock with the contents of the affidavit. 

“Some, however, see it as a form of vindication to some as they believed the highest levels of the judiciary have been compromised through decades of abuse of power. 

“The judges were supposed to defend the honour of their office and discharge their duties independently, but that was somehow compromised along the way.” – February 16, 2019.