Key parts of Hamid Sultan's affidavit expunged in judicial misconduct suit

Key portions of Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer’s affidavit on which a judicial misconduct suit against the Chief Justice (not named in the legal action) has been ordered expunged by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Judge Mohd Firuz Jaffril allowed the expungement application by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, who is acting on behalf of the respondent Chief Justice, during open court proceedings this afternoon.

This expungement order was delivered during the same proceedings today, where the judge later ordered the entirety of lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo’s judicial misconduct suit to be dismissed with no order to cost.

Firuz ruled that the 144 paragraphs out of Hamid Sultan’s (photo) 152 paragraphs, that were ordered expunged, were a mixture of those amounting to hearsay, irrelevant to Sangeet’s suit, and/or scandalous in nature.

In allowing the AGC’s expungement application, the judge, in the draft copy of today’s judgment, focused on the paragraphs of Hamid Sultan’s affidavit that Sangeet objects to their removal, namely paragraphs 5, 7 to 8, 10 to 20, 23 to 40, 42 to 49, 52 to 102, and 105 to 151, among others.

“In the above premise, the respondent’s application to expunge the averments set out in Annexure A (List of paragraphs sought to be expunged) of the Notice of Application (to expunge the paragraphs) dated March 7, 2019, is allowed accordingly,” Firuz ruled, adding that the court made no order to cost.

A large number of the expunged paragraphs referred to, without naming certain past and present judges, from Hamid Sultan’s description of them, such as what cases they presided on and their then judicial posts, could still potentially allow readers to identify them.

Paragraph 7 dealt with Hamid Sultan’s claim that he obtained knowledge of the judicial misconduct through two specific events, one taking place before the 14th General Election (GE14), and the other after the historic election.

Paragraph 10 dealt with Hamid Sultan’s claim of a political nexus between politics and the judiciary that could have affected a major court decision during the previous BN administration.

Paragraph 17 dealt with the elevation of certain judges following a decision in a major court case back in the 1980s.

Paragraph 39 pointed to Sultan Hamid’s allegation of past and ongoing judicial misconduct.

Paragraph 48 referred to the Court of Appeal judge’s allegation on the utilisation of the Sedition Act.

Paragraph 59 referred to his claim in relation to the proposal to extend the retirement age for judges to 70.

Paragraph 69 referred to Hamid Sultan’s claim in relation to court decisions linked to cases involving the then opposition.

Paragraph 91 made reference to Hamid Sultan’s allegation in relation to his dissenting judgment in an appeal involving the interfaith custodial battle between M Indira Gandhi and her Muslim convert husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah.

The chief justice, through the Attorney-General’s Chambers, had filed for the expungement application on March 7.

Present at today’s proceedings were senior federal counsel S Narkunavathy, who represented the chief justice, and counsel Joy Appukuttan, who held a watching brief for Hamid Sultan.

On Oct 2, Sangeet (above) had questioned the inaction of the government and judiciary over allegations of judicial misconduct raised by Hamid Sultan.

In shocking allegations contained in his affidavit filed on Feb 14, Hamid claimed that certain members of the judiciary have been aiding private parties to defraud the government.

He alleged that the act of defrauding was done through nominees of politicians who had contracts with the government.

In February, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad instructed for an RCI into judicial misconduct to be set up.

However, former Sabah chief minister Yong Teck Lee filed a suit to stop the RCI but his bid was struck out on July 24.

De facto law minister Liew Vui Keong said the government would decide on the RCI into judicial misconduct after Yong's 30 days appeal deadline elapses.

On Jan 14, Sangeet filed her suit against the chief justice seeking a declaration that he had failed to protect and defend the integrity of the judiciary over the sedition case against her late father, Karpal Singh. - Mkini