Judge vs judge – how Justice Hamid fell from grace

 

The senior judge was hauled before an ethics committee over his allegation about a reprimand by a top judge.

KUALA LUMPUR: Recent revelations by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas have raised more questions about the suspension of appeal court judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, effectively ending his judicial career.

Justice Hamid has become the first judge to be suspended from duty since a law on judicial ethics came into force. The suspension runs from Feb 4 until Aug 27, the date when he is expected to retire.

A lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it appeared that the punishment meted out on Hamid meant that judges could be disciplined for what they wrote in their judgements and for openly discussing the state of the judiciary.

“Considering what Tommy Thomas wrote in his recently published memoirs, that former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad informed him that feedback had revealed that a royal commission of inquiry into the judiciary was not welcomed by numerous judges, both serving and retired, raises more questions than answers,” he said.

It is expected that Hamid will use the legal route to seek justice, and that his battle for justice is far from over.

The road to suspension began in August 2018, when Hamid spoke at an international law conference in Kuala Lumpur, shocking the nation when he revealed that he had been reprimanded by a top judge for delivering a dissenting judgement in a widely followed case of unilateral conversion.

Hamid said the judge, whose identity he did not reveal, severely reprimanded him, and did so in a manner unbecoming of someone holding a top post.

(His dissenting judgement was unanimously upheld by a five-member Federal Court bench in early 2018, that consent of both spouses was required to convert a minor to Islam.)

His revelation about the reprimand led to the Malaysian Bar president then, George Varughese, urging the new Pakatan Harapan government to set up a royal commission of inquiry into the matter.

For the next six months nothing happened.

Then in February 2019, Hamid affirmed an explosive 65-page affidavit in support of a suit filed by lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo against Chief Justice Richard Malanjum.

The affidavit, which was widely circulated, stated that Malanjum had failed in his duty to preserve and protect the integrity of the judiciary.

Hamid also alleged that there had been interference in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy case and a sedition appeal by the late Karpal Singh.

The police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission attempted to record statements from Hamid, a practising lawyer before his elevation to the bench in 2007. He said he was prepared to tell all at the proposed royal commission, which the government had initially agreed to form.

In late 2019, the suit filed by Sangeet, who is Karpal’s daughter, was dismissed and almost all the contents of Hamid’s affidavit in support of Sangeet’s action were expunged as it was ruled to be scandalous, vexatious and frivolous.

In the meantime, however, Karpal’s sedition appeal had been allowed by the Federal Court in May 2019, a year after the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had granted a full pardon to Anwar for his three convictions – one for abuse of power and two for sodomy – on the basis that there was a “miscarriage of justice”.

Sometime in June last year, Hamid delivered a controversial judgement in a criminal drug appeal, and remarked that judges must be mindful of their judicial oath to preserve, defend and protect the Federal Constitution.

Following complaints by two judges to Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, who heads the Judges’ Ethics Committee, Hamid was issued a show cause notice in August.

In court documents filed by Hamid, it was revealed that he had been placed under “constructive suspension” and was not assigned to hear and dispose of new appeals.

He was asked to appear before the ethics committee but Hamid filed two actions in the High Court to stall the proceeding pending a judicial determination. He sought a declaration that the committee’s proceedings, held in camera, were irrational, against the rules of natural justice, and unconstitutional. He also challenged the composition of the committee.

Hamid also sought a direction in relation to the affidavit and judgement he delivered in the criminal case.

Last month, the High Court dismissed Hamid’s application for leave to file for a judicial review on the affidavit and judgement. The court also allowed the committee’s application to strike out Hamid’s originating summons, which is closely tied to the remedy sought in the judicial review application.

His application for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed.

Hamid did not appear before the ethics committee on Feb 4, citing, among others, that the composition of the panel has not been determined with finality.

The same day, the committee announced Hamid’s immediate suspension until Aug 27. - FMT