LFL dismisses ex-top judge's claim of Tengku Maimun interfering in case

Summary

• LFL adviser N Surendran says retired top judge Abdul Rahman Sebli's claim of a "very senior judge" interfering is illogical since that judge was on the deciding panel.

• Surendran explains judges debating draft opinions is a normal judicial process, not interference, and finds Rahman's claim of peer pressure unusual given judicial protections.

Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has dismissed a claim by recently retired chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Abdul Rahman Sebli that a "very senior judge" had tried to interfere in a case.

The group's adviser, N Surendran, said the interference claim is "plainly wrong" and "incomprehensible".

"This is because the ‘very senior’ judge who’s being accused of interference was also one of the seven members of the panel of judges who decided that case.

"How can a judge ‘interfere’ in a case in which she herself was involved in deciding? Such a suggestion defies logic," he said in a statement.

Surendran (above) said it is only interference when someone who is not a member of the court deciding a matter, such as the executive, tries to influence judges.

Rahman alleged during a farewell speech last week that when he was a Federal Court judge, a "very senior" judge had tried to pressure him into changing his ruling.

He said this was an example of judicial interference from within, which should be resisted.

Although he did not name names, it was likely aimed at retired chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat.

The case in question is believed to be Maria Chin Abdullah's final appeal against a travel ban.

In that case, one of the matters that Maria challenged was an ouster clause under the Immigration Act, which prohibited a judicial review of any decisions made under the Act.

On this specific matter, Rahman led a 4-3 majority ruling upholding the clause, while Tengku Maimun led the minority ruling against it.

Rahman said the pressure for him to change his decision came after he circulated a draft judgment to the others on the bench, with the "very senior judge" telling him he was wrong.

‘Nothing wrong’

Commenting on this, Surendran said there was nothing wrong with what transpired.

"Whenever there’s disagreement on the outcome of a case among the judges, it’s usual for them to circulate their draft majority or minority opinion to their fellow judges in the hope of persuading some of their colleagues to change their minds.

"In other words, there can be nothing wrong with any judge suggesting to his fellow judge in the same panel that his interpretation of the law is incorrect, and to try to change his position on it.

"This is part of the usual process of judicial decision-making, not just in Malaysia, but also of supreme courts in other common-law countries such as the UK or the US," he said.

Surendran also found it strange that Rahman complained of being affected by peer pressure.

This is because top judges enjoy tenure and constitutional protection, and thus would not be vulnerable to peer pressure.

Puad turns spotlight on Rafizi, Bar Council over ex-top judge's claim

Defiance without fear: PKR hails Madani's win in opposition uprising

Apandi questions 'contradiction' in ex-CJ's interference claim, urges probe

MP wants action against PM for 'interfering' in opting not to charge Dr M