by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Wednesday, June 29, 1994:
Parliament must decide next week whether Tun Ham id should continue as Lord President when he does not accept or appreciate the basic maxim that ‘Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”
The exclusive interview given by Lord President, Tun Hamid Omar, in the latest issue of Malaysian Business has raised a fundamental question as to whether Tun Hamid Omar should continue as Lord President as he does not accept or appreciate the basic maxim that “Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done”.
As a result of Tun Hamid’s exclusive interview in the Malaysian Business, Parliament, must address this fundamental question when it reconvenes from July 4 to 19.
In his exclusive interview with Malaysian Business, Tun Hamid failed to answer questions about the propriety of his conduct in connection with his private meeting with the Chief Executive Officer of MBf Group of companies, Tan Sri Loy Mean Heong on March 24, 1994 when Tan Sri Loy was a litigant in the contempt proceedings against DAP MP for Bukit Bintang, Wee Choo Keong.
On the contrary, Tun Hamid’s exclusive interview has reinforced public doubts and unease as to his suitability to hold the highest judicial office in the land – Lord President.
Justifying his private meeting with Tan Sri Loy, Tun Hamid said in the exclusive interview:
“I was not worried because I would not be hearing his case. If I were, then I would be deciding. I’m not in the position to decide because I’m not in the panel. That was already decided. So what’s wrong with it?”
It is most shocking that after so many months, Tun Hamid Omar is still insisting that what he had done was right, going against not only the consensus among practising lawyers but of the general public as well.
Even the Law Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar had said in Parliament that it was improper for judges to meet with litigants who have cases before the courts.
Tun Hamid Omar had clearly committed an impropriety in having a private meeting with Tan Sri Loy when the MBf Chief Executive Officer was a litigant in the BMf criminal contempt proceedings against Wee Choc Keong.
Two strong reasons by Bar Council June bulletin, INFOLINE, why Tun Hamid’s meeting with Tan Sri Loy was wrong and improper
The Editorial of the latest June issue of INFOLINE, the news bulletin published by Bar Council, gave two very strong reasons why Tun Hamid’s meeting with Tan Sri Loy was clearly wrong and improper.
The INFOLINE editorial made the following two points:
*(1) Whether the matter of the Supreme Court appeal was discussed between Tun Hamid and Tan Sri Loy or not, is not the issue. What is in issue is the appearance of impartiality, which is even more important than the reality of impartiality itself. The very fact that Tun Hamid had had to inform Tan Sri Loy that he was not scheduled to hear the appeal does indicate that some aspect of the appeal, however, insignificant, was mentioned and that the appeal was not altogether out of their mind.
* (2) The fact that Tun Hamid was not sitting in the panel of Judges to hear the Supreme Court appeal is also not the issue. He has to constantly bear in mind that only he, as the Lord President of the Supreme Court, has the power to, and can empanel the Judges of the Supreme Court who would hear any matter before that Court, including a matter in which he himself may be a party: that was established by his suspension of the five Judges who heard Tun Mohd Salleh Abas’ application to the Supreme Court for an interim order in 1988.
In that circumstances, how would it look to an appellant or an applicant if the respondent to the appeal or application were free to pay the Lord President a social visit while the appeal or application is pending? Does it make any difference that the Lord President himself was not scheduled to be in the panel of Judges to hear the appeal or application? How can the appellant or applicant be sure that the matter was indeed not discussed?
If the grounds advanced to excuse the visit were accepted, would that mean that Tun Hamid should be free to entertain social visits from his friends even if they have a pending case before the courts?
These points and questions made by the INFOLINE editorial also go to the crux of the issue as to the suitability and propriety of Tun Hamid to continue as Lord President.
What is even more shocking is another statement made by Tun Hamid in the exclusive interview with Malaysian Business Tun Hamid said:
“Sometimes you have an UMNO matter, but you still have to meet the PM and discuss things. But it’s not a discussion about the case. So what’s wrong with it? You mean I cannot meet the PM if an UMNO case is before the court?”
The posing of such a scenario and the question by the Lord President of the country is not only most disturbing, but also most unbecoming of the highest judicial office of the country as well as the whole Judiciary.
When Parliament meets from July 4 to 19, it should debate whether a Lord President who could pose such a scenario and question is fit to continue as Lord President as it is very clear that Tun Hamid is completely insensitive and unappreciative of the famous judicial dictum that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”
Actually, in next week’s Parliament, I have tabled a question to ask the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed to state the outcome of the Anti-Corruption Agency investigations into Lord President, Tun Hamid; whether Tun Hamid had been co-operative with the ACA in its investigations; whether Tun Hamid had been interrogated by the ACA, and if so to give the dates and times of the interrogation.
However, apart from the ACA investigations into Tun Hamid, an even more important issue now is the suitability of Tun Hamid to continue as Lord President in view of his shocking statements in his exclusive interview with Malaysian Business, and it must become Parliament’s unpleasant duty and responsibility next month to consider and decide whether any action should be initiated to remove a Lord President who does not appreciate the basic maxim that ‘Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done”!