As far as former attorney-general Abu Talib Othman is concerned, the 1988 judicial crisis was caused by none other than the judges themselves.

His view comes after former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad who on Wednesday reiterated that he was not responsible for the judicial crisis in 1988, insisting that he had merely acted on a complaint which came from the then Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the late Sultan Iskandar Sultan Ismail.

However, Mahathir said that Abu Talib, who was the attorney-general at the time, did not want to mention the Agong then.

Sharing his side of the story, Abu Talib cited the meeting held among judges from the Supreme and High Courts which decided that the then lord president Salleh Abas should make a representation to the Agong, complaining of the purported "attacks" by the executive on the judiciary.

Judges expressed their grievances

The meeting was held after Mahathir submitted several constitutional amendments to Parliament, divesting the courts of the "judicial power of the Federation" and thereby giving the courts only such judicial powers as Parliament might grant them.

In a letter addressed to the Agong, which was written by Salleh himself, the judges expressed their grievances over the executive's actions against the judiciary.

"That complaint seemed to have caused the displeasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Iskandar.

"He then referred that memorandum from Salleh to the prime minister with a command that appropriate action be taken on the basis of the complaint," Abu Talib told Malaysiakini in an interview.

A tribunal was then set up under Article 125(4) of the Federal Constitution to examine whether or not there was sufficient evidence to take action against Salleh on the grounds of misconduct.

"There's no other way because article 125(3) and 125(4) clearly provides that you cannot remove a judge for whatever cause without going through a tribunal," said Abu Talib.

A tribunal, he added, can only be set up on a representation made by the prime minister to the Agong.

Mahathir had no choice

"That was the only role of Mahathir in the removal of Salleh. He had no choice.

"What could the prime minister do but obey the command of the King," added Abu Talib who said that he had told Mahathir that he had no choice but to comply with the command.

"As I've said, the complaint against the judges was not initiated or made by Mahathir. The crisis, as I've said, was caused by the judges themselves," he said.

Tasked with preparing the court documents and conducting the inquiry, Abu Talib said it was unfortunate when Salleh decided not to turn up for the inquiry.

"It may have been otherwise if he had turned up. He could've explained but he chose not to, so who was in the wrong?"

Every step taken during the time, he further stressed, was in accordance with the constitution.

Second tribunal 

The second tribunal set up to investigate the five Supreme Court judges who granted Salleh an interlocutory order against the first tribunal was also done in accordance with the Constitution, he said.

The five were suspended and two from the five were subsequently sacked.

Meanwhile, asked whether the Agong's name was omitted or otherwise during the hearing, Abu Talib confirmed that it was indeed mentioned.

"It was mentioned. The fact that the memorandum was submitted to the Agong was mentioned (during the tribunal).

"I think a copy of the representation made to the Agong, signed by Salleh, was tendered during the hearing," he said.

Asked, despite his as well as Mahathir's own insistence that he had nothing to do with the judicial crisis, why does Mahathir continue to be blamed for it, Abu Talib said: "Probably it is all politics. I'm not here to defend Mahathir (but) the decision to remove Salleh was made on the recommendation of the tribunal to the Agong. 

To another question, if the Agong complained about Salleh, Abu Talib stressed that the word "complain" was not appropriate in this case. He pointed out the Agong had merely received the representation from the lord president regarding the criticism of the executive on the judiciary.

"The Agong referred the matter to the prime minister with the command that he acts on it. You cannot say it's a complaint," he emphasised. 

To another question, if it was Mahathir who said that it was the Agong who complained, he replied: "Well, he used that word. But the facts here, as I said, the crisis was caused by the judiciary itself, not Mahathir and not the Agong."

Controversy and criticism 

Asked whether he agreed that the incident was the turning point in which the judiciary began to lose its independence, Abu Talib believes that there were instances in which the judiciary had given its own interpretation in various cases.

"There had been cases where certain judges seemed to have put forward their own self-serving interpretation of the Constitution and the law which is totally different from that which was intended by Parliament.

"That has caused a lot of controversy and criticism on the judiciary," he said.

Asked if the judiciary, should then simply remain quiet despite the purported attacks by the executive, he said: "Whatever I say is an afterthought, what I think doesn't really matter, the rest is history. 

"The matter was referred to the Agong, he acted on the recommendation of the tribunal and it is history now.

"Hopefully there would not be another judicial crisis. We cannot afford another one," he said.

The constitutional crisis in 1988 saw the dismissal of Salleh together with two other judges.

Many believe that the judges' removal was the end of Malaysia's judicial independence.