Shocking! Judge claims judiciary involved in swindling public funds

In a shocking allegation, Court of Appeal Judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer has claimed that certain members of the judiciary have been aiding private parties to defraud the government.

He mentioned this in an affidavit filed today supporting 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 incidents of judicial interference.

Hamid claimed the act of defrauding was done through nominees of politicians creating contracts with the government.

Once the government reneges on the contract, he alleged, the private parties would take the government to court in order to claim compensation.

"I will give an example. The government will enter into a contract with a political nominee with no intention of honouring it.

"Subsequently, the government will terminate the contract and the nominee will sue the government for breach of contract.

"The government may record a consent judgment accepting liability and agreeing to assess damages.

"This modus operandi was to deprive the exchequer by false claims," he claimed.

Hamid (photo), who is a sitting judge, repeatedly stressed the need for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to look into this matter.

In an attempt to thwart such cases, the judge said he developed jurisprudence relating to fraud on the exchequer or entering into unfair terms of an agreement with the government, which would render a contract unenforceable based on public policy grounds.

"When a contract relates to the government and a private party, no advantage of any nature can be taken by the private party even though the government agencies, in breach of rule of law, may have consented.

"In short, ordinary contractual principles in all corners will not apply. The court, to protect public interest, is obliged not to recognise such contracts even though it is in writing," he added.

Hamid claimed that certain top judges responded with contempt towards the move.

"Many of my judgments on commercial matters which supported the government were scorned by top judges," he added.

Hamid claimed that a particular top judge, whom he referred to as 'ARLC,' had attempted to embarrass him after becoming upset with his jurisprudence which prevented 'ARLC' from helping the nominees.

"It would have been perfectly alright if the matter had gone on appeal before his Coram and if he had written a judgement disagreeing with my jurisprudence.

"However, it was misconduct on his part to belittle me," he added.

Hamid said 'ARLC' was the same person who had reprimanded him for his dissenting judgment in the unilateral conversion case of M Indira Gandhi's children.

"It is time the Attorney-General's Chambers looks at judgments where federal or state government or its agencies were ordered to pay money on government contracts and analyse whether it was correct in principle to do so.

"Judgments against the government for the benefit of private parties in the nature of nominees or the like must be revisited to rule out any form of corrupt practice in obtaining these judgments," he said.

Hamid also alleged judicial interference in the case of Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd vs PCP Construction Sdn Bhd in which he had a dissenting judgment, parts of which were expunged in a manner "unprecedented in Commonwealth jurisdictions."

He claimed that the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA), now known as the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), through “sympathetic persons,” started exerting pressure on him over the dissenting judgment.

He also claimed that certain top judges had given a lending hand to the KLRCA.

"The conduct of the judiciary on Leap Modulation itself requires an RCI with ex-judges from England to sit, to see whether a judge's observation on public law can be expunged in the manner done by the three judges at the Federal Court.

"Leap Modulation is a judgment the global arbitration community has taken note of," he said.

Hamid said he gave much thought about the contents of his affidavit and described it as a "lonely voice" in the judiciary.

"I hope and pray that other right-thinking members of the judiciary will sincerely join hands to clean the judiciary to save Malaysia from kleptocracy, as well as judicial rowdyism," he added. - Mkini