Why Malanjum lost to Raus as Chief Justice

By admin-s On Jul 25, 2017

That’s how it is still today, the ugly ‘architecture’ set in 1988 and continues to be exploited by today’s incumbent of the government’s executive

KTemoc Konsiders

MM Online – Lack of diversity in appointments to high office in the judiciary — HAKAM (extracts):

JULY 24 — The appointment of the present Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal to continue in their posts after the mandatory retirement age of 66 years plus a further 6 months allowed by the Constitution — has understandably generated a great deal of controversy in legal circles as well as the public. Many question the constitutionality of these appointments.

It is unfortunate that we have the highest levels of our judiciary embroiled in a constitutional crisis when it is the apex Federal Court that routinely deals with constitutional matters.

Is it not apparent that the time is long overdue to appoint the most qualified judge from East Malaysia to fill the post of Chief Justice?

And is it also not equally apparent that it is long overdue for a lady judge to be elevated to the position of one of the office holders in the Judiciary?

HAKAM is the National Human Rights Society headed by our dear Ambiga Sreenevasan. She should know why, like so many public institutions in Malaysia, the Judiciary has been so mutilated, in fact since mutilated.

The answer is a three-syllable-word, to wit, Mahathir.

During Mahathir’s reign as PM of this nation, we suffered the Malaysian Constitutional Crisis of 1988 where the Lord President (now called Chief Justice) was kicked out.

Wikipedia tells about that crisis which demolished our erstwhile independent judiciary (extracts):

In 1988, Tun Salleh Abas was brought before a tribunal convened by the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammad on the grounds of misconduct.

The tribunal was chaired by Tun Hamid Omar.

Hamid Omar, deputy to Lord President Salleh Abas

the ‘Timbalan’ who kowtim-ed his Boss and then succeeded the deposed Lord President

Hamid Omar was completely cold-shouldered by the Malaysian Bar

In response to the tribunal, Tun Salleh Abas filed a suit in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur to challenge the constitutionality of the tribunal. While proceeding with the suit, Tun Salleh Abas applied for an interim stay against the tribunal until 4 July 1988. The request was denied.

Later however, five judges of the Supreme Court convened and granted Tun Salleh Abas an interlocutory order against the tribunal.

righteous & thus kowtim-ed too

Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, one of the most erudite and brilliant of our earlier-days judges never did quite recover from that shame of being suspended and was fearful of his beloved wife Haseenah Abduillah hearing of it – broken hearted, he killed himself after his wife’s demise

Upon receiving the order, Tun Salleh Abas’ solicitors proceed to the Parliament to present the chairman of the tribunal the interlocutory order. The gate leading to the Parliament however was locked and Tun Salleh Abas’ representative had to call in the police to be guaranteed a passage into the Parliament. Eventually, the order was presented to the tribunal chairman.

Soon after, the five judges were suspended.a

The judges were Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah.

This effectively suspended the Supreme Court. With the Supreme Court suspended, the challenge toward the legality of the tribunal could not be heard.

The tribunal later removed Tun Salleh Abas from his office. Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah were also removed from office. The other three judges were later reinstated.

The irregular dismissal of Tun Salleh Abas led the Bar Council of Malaysia refusing to recognise the new Lord President.

Around the same time, the Federal Constitution was amended to divest the courts of the “judicial power of the Federation”, granting them instead such judicial powers as Parliament might grant them.

A major critic to Mahathir’s actions include Malaysia’s first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. In a New York Times article, he was said to be “disgusted” at the actions.

His views however were criticised by the then Education Minister,Anwar Ibrahim, who claimed that the Tunku was ″a grand old man who has done his bit″

Mahathir’s supporters insisted that it had liberated the Malaysian judiciary from a colonial mindset. The sacking of several justices was justified by claims that these judges had been abusing public funds for their personal expenses — such as the purchase of luxury furniture from Italy. It was also claimed that the sackings had eliminated deadwood and improved efficiency in the courts, as evinced by a reduction in their backlog.

That mutilation, rot and stench linger on until today, thanks to Mahathir who destroyed the independence of the Judiciary.