Summary of Events On The Suspension Of The Hon. Justice Datuk Dr. Haji Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer

COUNSEL NOTES

And The Impugned Judgement dated 17-07-2020.

PART A – SUSPENSION OF JUSTICE HAMID

On 4^th February 2021^{^[1]}, the Judges’ Ethics Committee (“JEC”)^{^[2]} suspended Justice Hamid until 27^th August 2021^{^[3]}.

Briefly, the suspension arose from 2 complaints lodged against Justice Hamid by 2 of his fellow judges over allegations that he had disparaged the Judiciary premised on (a) an affidavit Justice Hamid affirmed on 14^th February 2019 (“Impugned Affidavit”) that was filed at the request of Ms. Sangeet Kaur (daughter of the late Mr. Karpal Singh) in her civil suit against the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia^{^[4]} (“Sangeet’s Civil Suit”) to investigate judicial interference in her late father’s criminal appeal for sedition and (b) from Justice Hamid’s judgment^{^[5]} (“Impugned Judgment”).

The irony is that even before the suspension, it was widely reported that the then Prime Minister did call for the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) to investigate the statements in the Impugned Affidavit.^{^[6]} This RCI Inquiry had not commenced (leave alone concluded) when the JEC proceeded and concluded its inquiry and suspended Justice Hamid on 27.8.2020.

Bearing in mind, that the Impugned Affidavit was filed in legal proceedings and carries a measure of privilege, and further that an RCI had been called over the statements in the Impugned Affidavit coupled with the fact that the Impugned Judgment was pronounced in open court in judicial proceedings and appeal process was not only available but pending, the question of whether the complaints could give rise to a basis for an investigation by the JEC, leading to Justice Hamid’s suspension is a pertinent legal issue. It must be noted that Justice Hamid’s statements in his Impugned Affidavit of judicial misconduct including judicial interference in cases was never investigated and found to be false, made in bad faith etc.

This Summary is prepared to give a clear picture of and chronology to, what transpired in the matter of the JEC Inquiry in relation to Justice Hamid leading to his suspension.

PART B – BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO JUSTICE HAMID

The Honourable Mr. Justice Datuk Dr. Haji Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer is a Judge of the Court of Appeal (Malaysia)^{^[7]}. He is the author of several text books^{^[8]} and holder of a doctorate.^{^[9]}

Apart from introducing the University cum Court Annexed Arbitration concept^{^[10]}, Justice Hamid has religiously adhered to the principles of his Constitutional Oath of Office, the Rule of Law and Natural Justice.^{^[11]}

His contributions to the Law have been well received both locally and internationally.^{^[12]}

PART C – INFORMATION ON JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE

Approximately a month prior to the Malaysian 14^th General Election (early 2018) (“GE 14”)^{^[13]} in Malaysia, a top judge and other judges including Justice Hamid met for lunch at an Italian restaurant. At the said lunch, the top judge and a number of the other judges expressed concern over their removal if the then opposition came to power.^{^[14]} To Justice Hamid these concerns expressed by these judges were akin to a confession relating to some form of guilt. Post GE 14, a senior judge then informed Justice Hamid that there had been interference in the Anwar Ibrahim^{^[15]} decisions at the Court of Appeal as well as the Federal Court and similarly in Karpal Singh’s^{^[16]} sedition case at the Court of Appeal.

These events brought flashbacks to Justice Hamid of other events which together made a strong case to call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCI”) as well as if need be, tribunalisation, to expose judicial and constitutional misconduct of top judges who had acted with the aid and support of other judges in the decision-making process of the Anwar Ibrahim criminal cases and Karpal Singh sedition case.

As per Justice Hamid’s constitutional oath of office, barrister’s code of ethics, and religious upbringing, Justice Hamid had taken a strong position that he was under a public duty to disclose such judicial interference and misconduct.

As such, Justice Hamid made this disclosure of such interference and misconduct in the Judiciary at the International Malaysia Law Conference held in August 2018^{^[17]}. His disclosure was made with the best interest of the Judiciary in mind. These disclosures of judicial misconduct were later expanded in the Impugned Affidavit in Sangeet’s Civil Suit^{^[18]}. The Impugned Affidavit was prepared at the request of Ms. Sangeet Kaur in order that these matters raised by Justice Hamid could be brought to the Court hearing Sangeet’s Civil Suit and for the facts to be investigated.^{^[19]}

On 21^st February 2019, the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was reported to have announced that the Cabinet had agreed to set up an RCI to investigate matters raised in the Impugned Affidavit^{^[20]}. The Malaysian Bar had complemented the Government’s call on the establishment of an RCI to probe and investigate the matters raised therein^{^[21]}. Even the Malaysian Parliamentary Caucus on Reform and Governance had agreed to raise the establishment of the RCI with the Cabinet.^{^[22]}

However, the setting up of the RCI did not materialize. Although there was a change in government on 29^th February 2020^{^[23]}, there was no call for the revocation of the setting up of the RCI.

Further, it was recently reported prior to the JEC’s enquiry on 4^th February 2021 that the previous Attorney General Tommy Thomas had in his memoirs, My Story: Justice in the Wilderness claimed that the RCI, was stalled by current and retired judges^{^[24]}, although it was assured to be established to look into the matters raised by Justice Hamid in the Impugned Affidavit.

PART D – THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

In the Impugned Judgment, Justice Hamid had dealt with various aspects of the constitutional oath of office of Judges and the Rule of Law.^{^[25]}

PART E – THE IMPUGNED NOTICE & ‘CHARGES’

All of a sudden in August 2020, Justice Hamid received Notice dated 10^th August 2020 (“Impugned Notice”) from the Chairman of the Judges Ethics Committee alleging that Justice Hamid had breached several provisions of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 2009 arising from several matters raised in the Impugned Affidavit and the Impugned Judgment. The Impugned Notice sets out the complaints, the alleged breaches of the Judges Code of Ethics 2009 and the ‘charges’ in Appendix A to the Impugned Notice^{^[26]}. These appear to have emanated from 2 separate complaint letters from 2 serving Judges, coincidentally dated the same day.

It is important to note that the Impugned Judgment was delivered on 17^th June 2020 and immediately after that, Justice Hamid was constructively suspended, in that no fresh assignment of hearing was given and those cases which had been fixed had been assigned to other judges. The complaint by the two judges dated 23^rd June 2020 only came about 6 days after Justice Hamid was constructively suspended. In addition, if constructive suspension as well as actual suspension are taken together it will add up to more than 12 months. The code permits only 12 months suspension and the Constitution clearly says suspension may only be made by the YDPA. Thus, based on the primary facts leading to the suspension it can be fairly argued that the suspension is predetermined as well as unconstitutional.

Justice Hamid had disputed all the allegations brought against him and submitted his reply dated 7^th September 2020 (“Justice Hamid’s Reply”) to the JEC wherein, he inter alia did question the jurisdiction and legality of the JEC in taking up such an exercise (instead of allowing the RCI to probe/investigate the matters raised in the Impugned Affidavit)^{^[27]}, as well as allowing the Federal Court hearing any appeal against the Impugned Judgment to deal with the issues in the Impugned Judgment.

In that time, statutory bodies such as the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam)^{^[28]} and non-governmental organisations such as Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram)^{^[29]} having called for the establishment of a RCI, also stated inter alia that Justice Hamid should not be subjected to proceedings by the JEC especially when these matters relate to matters of public interest, and it was crucial for his allegations to be investigated by an independent tribunal like the RCI.

PART F – THE LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE

Justice Hamid had then filed an Originating Summons^{^[30]} under Originating Summons No: WA-24-55-10/2020 at the KL High Court against inter alia the Chairman of the JEC and the JEC for the determination of matters relating to the construction of the Federal Constitution to assist the JEC to act in accordance with the Rule of Law and Federal Constitution. This became essential since the JEC itself as an inferior tribunal inter alia, has no jurisdiction to deal with constitutional issues related to its jurisdiction even though the JEC comprises of sitting and retired judges, since they are not sitting in their judicial capacity when sitting in the JEC. The reliefs and determination sought through the Originating Summons related to jurisdictional and constitutional issues as well as natural justice and procedural fairness issues which should have been determined first, before the JEC embarked on its enquiry.

Justice Hamid had also filed a Judicial Review Application^{^[31]} under Judicial Review Application No: WA-25-313-10/2020 at the KL High Court in respect of actions, omissions or decisions of the Chairman of the JEC and the JEC on points of challenge with regard to inter alia the decision of the JEC’s refusal to grant his request for the proceedings to be heard in an open forum with access to the public, and the challenge to the constitutionality and the composition and validity of some of the members of the JEC to sit in the JEC enquiry against him, as well as the issues of the JEC members drafting complaints/charges against him, thereby becoming Judge, Jury, Complainant and Prosecutor all rolled in one.

Originating Summons

With regard to the Originating Summons, the following transpired:

The first case management in the High Court was fixed on 4^th November 2020 during the Conditional Movement Control Order (CMCO) period imposed by the government to restrict the movements in light of the Covid 19 pandemic;

The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (Chairman of the JEC and the JEC respectively) filed an application to strike out the Originating Summons^{^[32]};

At the said case management, the Court directed that the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Striking Out Application be heard first before dealing with the merits of the Originating Summons;

The Court proceeded to fix the hearing of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Striking Out Application on 21^st December 2020;

The Court heard submissions from parties on 21^st December 2020 and fixed decision on the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Striking Out Application for 21^st January 2021;

On 21^st January 2021, the High Court allowed the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants’ Striking Out Application, whereupon Justice Hamid’s Originating Summons was struck out as against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants^{^[33]};

Justice Hamid thereafter filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Appeal No: W-01(IM)-53-01/2021 (“OS Appeal”), appealing against the said High Court decision.

Arising from the decision of the JEC on 4/2/2021, both the OS against remaining Defendants, Sangeet and Haniff and the OS Appeal became nugatory. Consequently, the OS and the OS Appeal were withdrawn on 25/3/2021 and 9/3/2021, respectively.

Judicial Review

With regard to the Judicial Review, the following transpired:

The cause papers for leave to commence Judicial Review Application were served on the Attorney General’s Chambers (“AGC”) in accordance with Order 53 rule 3(3) Rules of Court 2012. The hearing date for the Judicial Review Application for Leave was initially fixed on 12^th November 2020. This was an ex parte application but the Honourable Attorney General chose to send representatives at the leave stage to oppose the Judicial Review (“JR”) proceedings.

Due to the CMCO, the Hearing of the Judicial Review Application for Leave could not proceed. Justice Hamid’s solicitors however requested for an interim stay of the JEC proceedings (pursuant to prayer 10 of the Judicial Review Application for Leave) which enquiry was scheduled to take place on 25^th November 2020;

The AGC objected to the request for an interim stay of the JEC proceedings against Justice Hamid;

On 12^th November 2020, the Court after hearing/reading submissions and replies to submissions from parties, granted the Interim Stay of the JEC proceedings against Justice Hamid until 21^st December 2020^{^[34]} the date the Judicial Review Application for Leave was scheduled to be heard together with the JEC and its Chairman’s Application to strike out the Originating Summons^{^[35]};

At the request of the AGC, the Judicial Review Application was brought forward and heard on 10^th December 2020. The learned judge deferred her decision to 21^st January 2021. The learned judge also granted an interim stay of the JEC proceedings against Justice Hamid until 21^st January 2021;

On 21^st January 2021, the High Court dismissed Justice Hamid’s Judicial Review Application for Leave.^{^[36]} An application for a stay of the JEC proceedings pending filing of Notice of Appeal made orally on the same day, was met with a direction that Justice Hamid’s Solicitors were required to file a formal application for the same.

Justice Hamid thereafter on 22^nd January 2021 filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal vide Appeal No: W-01(IM)-53-01/2021 (“JR Appeal”) appealing against the said High Court decision made on 21^st January 2021;

Through letter dated 26^th January 2021, the Chairman of the JEC gave notice to convene the JEC Enquiry at 3pm on 4^th February 2021 despite the ongoing MCO imposed by the government arising from the Covid 19 pandemic.

On 27^th January 2021 Justice Hamid filed a formal application for stay of the JEC’s proceedings in the High Court, pending his OS Appeal and JR Appeal to the Court of Appeal, which would otherwise be rendered academic/nugatory in the event the JEC enquiry proceeds before the appeals at the Court of Appeal are heard^{^[37]};

On 2^nd February 2021, the High Court dismissed Justice Hamid’s Application for Stay^{^[38]};

On the same day, Justice Hamid filed an application at the Court of Appeal supported by a certificate of urgency seeking a stay of the JEC’s Enquiry so that the status of his JR Appeal would be preserved and not rendered academic/nugatory.

The Application for stay was instead fixed for 5^th February 2021 at a case management via e-review notwithstanding much careful explanation given by Justice Hamid’s solicitors on the urgency and the need for the matter to be heard before 3pm of 4^th February 2021 (the scheduled time and date for the JEC Enquiry)^{^[39]};

Subsequently, Justice Hamid’s solicitors through letter dated 3^rd February 2021 wrote to the President of the Court of Appeal (“PCA”) to request for an urgent hearing of the Application for stay before 3pm of 4^th February 2021. The PCA did not respond.

In that time, statutory bodies such as the Malaysian Bar Council and the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) urged that Justice Hamid be given the opportunity to ventilate his arguments fully via the Court process before the JEC embarks on its enquiry and reiterated that a RCI be established to look into the merits of the complaints^{^[40]};

The JEC nevertheless proceeded with its enquiry on 4^th February 2021 and concluded with its decision;

The stay application before the Court of Appeal on 5^th February 2021 was therefore rendered academic and nugatory, and was accordingly withdrawn.

Arising from the decision of the JEC on 4/2/2021, the JR Appeal became nugatory and consequently the JR Appeal was withdrawn on 9/3/2021.

PART G – JEC’S ENQUIRY

Prior to the JEC Enquiry, Justice Hamid’s solicitors did through letter dated 26^th January 2021 write to the Chairman of the JEC to request for the JEC enquiry to be adjourned on the grounds that, (a) OS Appeal and JR Appeal were pending before the Court of Appeal, which ought to be determined prior to the enquiry and (b) that Justice Hamid’s lead counsel is unable to travel interstate due to his age, as he falls within the high-risk group of persons that are vulnerable to contracting the Covid 19 virus.

The Chairman of the JEC replied through letter dated 29^th January 2021 declining the request for an adjournment of the JEC Enquiry.

With regard to the JEC’s Enquiry, the following transpired:

3 Counsel^{^[41]} attended the Enquiry on behalf of Justice Hamid, but lead counsel who was based out of town could not, due to the MCO;

The JEC panel comprised of 7 members which included current and former judges;

Counsel then addressed the JEC panel and requested for an adjournment on grounds that (a) lead counsel was unable to attend due to the MCO, (b) that there are Appeals pending and the Stay Application before the Court of Appeal was scheduled to be heard on 5^th February 2021 (the next day) and (c) that Justice Hamid was unwell;

After a few moments of deliberation, the JEC declined the request for an adjournment;

Counsel, as instructed, informed the JEC that Justice Hamid was unable to participate in the JEC enquiry in light of the pending challenges in the Court inter alia regarding the constitutionality, jurisdiction and the composition of some of the JEC committee members who had nexus to the Anwar Ibrahim and Karpal Singh cases^{^[42]};

The Counsel were then excused from the enquiry by the JEC;

A few hours thereafter, Justice Hamid’s solicitors received a letter from the JEC Chairman informing that Justice Hamid had been suspended^{^[43]}. No intimation or decision was given for presumably ignoring all jurisdictional and other objections raised in Justice Hamid’s Reply in writing to the Impugned Notice. The suspension ordered covered the remaining tenure of Justice Hamid as a serving Judge.

PART H – CONCLUSION

The Malaysian Bar Council^{^[44]} as well as other organisations^{^[45]} have called on the JEC to review its decision in light of inter alia the fact that the matters raised in the Impugned Affidavit ought to have first been determined at the RCI and a definitive finding made on the charges of judicial misconduct and judicial interference. In fact, the Malaysian Bar Council reiterated that these issues must be dealt by an independent oversight body.

It is also imperative to note the following troubling facts which have emerged from this whole challenge:-

A ‘whistleblower’ judge has been punished for providing information about the mishaps taking place in the Judiciary internally;

The JEC’s decision to proceed with the Enquiry notwithstanding being made well aware of the impending jurisdictional, procedural, composition and constitutional challenges in Court shows the JEC’s refusal to facilitate such challenges taking into consideration the Ouster Clause under the Act may not give a viable opportunity to challenge the decision through a court process. It can be fairly said that the JEC had failed to facilitate access to justice to the senior most judge of the Court of Appeal and on the face of it is a breach of natural justice/procedural fairness. Additionally, the JEC’s decision to proceed with the Enquiry without giving an adjournment to address the constitutional and composition issues amounts to a harsh and oppressive act;

The reluctance of the JEC to grant an adjournment of the Enquiry notwithstanding being appraised of valid grounds and the subsequent speed in reaching a conclusion (order of suspension) shows that the whole process (charges against Justice Hamid) appears to have been predetermined;

The above is further fortified by the removal of Justice Hamid’s reported judgments on the Judiciary’s website before the charges were even brought against him and Justice Hamid not being assigned fresh hearings before the hearing and decision of the Enquiry, which shows pre-determined constructive suspension;

Only the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong has the constitutional power to suspend a Judge from office. The JEC, being an inferior tribunal, has circumvented the Federal Constitution by relying on the JEC Act passed by Parliament;

Section 15(3) of the JEC Act which in essence is an Ouster/Finality clause runs contrary to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and the doctrine of basic structure;

The JEC did not filed any Affidavit to rebut and/or reply to the assertions made by Justice Hamid in his Affidavit-in-Support filed in the Originating Summons and nor did the AGC file any affidavit in reply in the Judicial Review.

Against this backdrop, we look forward to eminent jurists on their input and views on this matter, with particular consideration on whether the whole process including Justice Hamid’s suspension and the existence of an ouster clause in the JEC Act which was applied to silence a whistleblower judge, was constitutional.

These views and input will not just be in Justice Hamid’s personal interest but in the public interest and the interest of all concerned with the Judiciary and judicial process, which is an essential cornerstone in a true and just democracy and a civilized jurisdiction.

In the alternative, interested bodies and/or the Government may study the relevant cause papers and subsequently seek and/or make suitable recommendations to set aside the unconstitutional charges and findings made against Justice Hamid.

Thank you.

Dated: 01-04-2021

……………………………………..

Name:

^[1] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/02/04/hamid-sultans-days-as-a-judge-are-over/

^[2] Constituted by the Chief Justice of Malaysia pursuant to the Judges’ Ethics Committee Act 2010.

^[3] Article 125, Federal Constitution provides that a judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-six years or such later time, not being later than six months after he attains that age as His Majesty the King shall approve. Justice Hamid celebrates his birthday on 28^th August.

^[4] KL High Court Originating Summons No. WA-24NCvC-97-01/2019

^[5] PP v Aluma Mark Chinoso & Ors (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal Nos: B-05(LLB)-449-09/2018 & B-05(IM)-453-09/2018.

^[6] https://www.nst.com.my/news/government-public-policy/2019/02/462212/govt-greenlights-rci-allegations-judicial-misconduct

^[7] Justice Hamid is a Panel Advisor of Islamic Science University of Malaysia (USIM); Barrister-at-Law; Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (London); Honorary Fellow, Middle East Institute (MEI), National University of Singapore; Honorary Visiting Professor of Damodaran Sanjivayya National Law University (DSNLU), Visakhapatnam, India. He was formerly an Adjunct Professor of International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) and Multimedia University (MMU).

^[8] Justice Hamid writes under the publication of Janab Law Series (https://janablegal.com/) and has written books on inter alia Civil Procedure, Evidence, Advocacy & Professional Ethics, Criminal Procedure, Conveyancing & Islamic Banking and Legal Remedies. He is currently in the process of completing his books on Constitutional Law and Company Law.

^[9] From the International Islamic University, Malaysia

^[10] http://janablegal.com/university-arbitration/

^[11] See Judge Hamid’s paper entitled, Social Justice, Constitutional Oath, Rule of Law & Judicial Review, The Malaysian Chapter (http://www.janablegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Contents-Social-Justice_13.11.19.pdf). See also his decisions in (i) Nik Noorhafizi bin Nik Ibrahim & Ors v PP6 [2014] 2 CLJ 2737; (ii) Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad v PP[2014] 4 CLJ 9448; (iii) Teh Guat Hong v Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasiona [2015] 3 AMR 359; (iv) Chong Chung Moi @ Christine Chong v The Government of the State of Sabah & Ors [2007]5 MLJ 441 & (v) Teoh Meng Kee v. PP [2014] 7 CLJ 1034

^[12] https://www.ciarb.org/resources/features/singapore-mediation-convention-is-the-rule-of-law-intact/

^[13] The Malaysian Parliament was dissolved on 7^th April 2018 and general elections & State Elections (except the State of Sarawak) was held on 9^th May 2018.

^[14] Prior to GE 14, the ruling Federal Government was led by PM Najid Razak of Barisan National (BN) comprising of a coalition of political parties that held power for 60 years since Independence (initially through a coalition of political parties under Alliance before the change to BN). The opposition then was led by Dr. Mahatir Mohammad through a coalition of political parties known as Pakatan Harapan.

^[15] For the facts of the case see Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP [2015] 2 CLJ 145

^[16] For the facts of the case see Karpal Singh v PP [2016] 8 CLJ 15

^[17] https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/speeches/speeches/presentation-by-justice-datuk-dr-haji-hamid-sultan-bin-abu-backer-judge-of-the-court-of-appeal-of-malaysia-at-imlc-2018-16-aug-2018

^[18] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2019/02/14/judges-explosive-affidavit-on-judicial-misconduct-goes-viral/

^[19] Parts of the affidavit was expunged inter alia on grounds of hearsay. See [2019] 1 LNS 2312. Sangeet’s action was rendered academic arising from the subsequent Federal Court decision to acquit her late father for the sedition charges. See [2019] 1 LNS 2325.

^[20] https://www.nst.com.my/news/government-public-policy/2019/02/462212/govt-greenlights-rci-allegations-judicial-misconduct

^[21]https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/02/17/malaysian-bar-joins-calls-for-rci-following-appellate-judges-affidavit/

^[22] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/12/03/we-will-submit-proposal-to-cabinet

^[23] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/regional/2020/02/29/malaysia-king-names-muhyiddin-as-premier-to-succeed-mahathir

^[24] https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/rci-judiciary-put-back-burner-072400481.html

^[25] PP v Aluma Mark Chinoso & Ors [2020] 1 LNS 584

^[26] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/08/16/judge-hamid-issued-show-cause-notice-over-affidavit-remarks/

^[27] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/09/11/court-of-appeal-judge-sends-explosive-response-to-show-cause-notice/

^[28] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/09/14/suhakam-calls-for-speedy-rci-into-allegations-of-judicial-misconduct-by-judge/

^[29] https://www.suaram.net/2020/08/16/show-cause-letter-against-hamid-sultan-damaging-for-judiciarys-image/

^[30] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/10/13/court-of-appeal-judge-turns-to-court-for-remedy/ and https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2020/10/15/judge-says-obliged-to-reveal-judiciary-misconduct-under-oath-of-office/

^[31] https://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/senior-judge-files-legal-challenge-034500881.html?guccounter=1