Sangeet: CJ must address allegations in affidavit

KUALA LUMPUR: The Chief Justice must immediately address the allegations contained in an affidavit by Court of Appeal judge Justice Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer, says lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo.

Sangeet, daughter of the late Karpal Singh, said the Chief Justice’s failure in doing so would “speak for itself”.

She also slammed the Malaysian Bar for its silence over the matter.

“Despite having been served with a copy of the filed court papers soon after the action was filed, the Bar Council president has also regrettably found it fit to remain silent on such a fundamental issue involving the integrity of the judiciary.

“The Malaysian Bar must take a stand,” she said in a statement Friday (Feb 15).

Sangeet described Hamid’s affidavit, which has been circulating, as “unprecedented” and an “exceptionally bold move” as the judge is still serving the Court of Appeal.

“The issues plaguing the independence of the judiciary, which have long been wilfully ignored, are now public.

“Stakeholders, especially the Government, must not renegade on their duty to address this crisis,” she said.

Sangeet also called for Hamid to be given protection after his explosive allegations.

“He must also be given the opportunity to reveal further information which he says he has, through formal channels of inquiry,” she added.

In a short reply, Chief Justice Richard Malanjum said he will respond to the issue in time.

“Will revert when appropriate,” he said in a text message to The Star.

On Thursday (Feb 14), Hamid made shocking claims in court papers, alleging scams between certain top judges and private litigants to cheat the government.

The revelation was contained in his 65-page affidavit filed in support of an application by Sangeet to declare that the Chief Justice had failed to defend the integrity of the judiciary in two cases.

Hamid said the scams were carried out by nominees of politicians getting into contracts with the government.

Once the government pulled out of a deal, the private parties would take the government to court to claim compensation.

He alleged that these private parties created contracts with the government to defraud public funds, and the apex court was perceived to be sympathetic to them.