KUALA LUMPUR (Feb 15): An internal investigation into alleged judicial interference in an appeal pertaining to the late lawyer Karpal Singh was suspended in view of an ongoing police investigation into the case.
Special officer to the Chief Justice, Mohd Aizuddin Zolkeply said the internal investigation was also suspended after taking into account that the appeal was still pending at the Federal Court on the request of the applicant in the appeal to await the outcome of the police investigation.
“The internal inquiry was merely suspended and not discontinued to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the ongoing police investigation as well as the pending appeal,” he said in an affidavit-in-reply to an originating summons which was made available to the media today.
The originating summons was filed by Karpal’s daughter, lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo in connection with the alleged interference by the judiciary in the outcome of Karpal’s sedition case and in the case of the religious conversion of three Hindu children.
The seven-page document which was affirmed by Mohd Aizuddin, 37, was filed on Feb 7.
Sangeet had sued the Chief Justice on Jan 14, seeking a declaration that he had failed to protect and defend the integrity of the judiciary with regard to her late father's sedition appeal and stated an unnamed “Chief Justice of Malaysia” as the sole respondent in her suit.
Sangeet is seeking a declaration that the Chief Justice had failed to perform his duties as the head of the judiciary to defend its integrity and credibility when he failed to complete investigations relating to two very serious allegations of judicial interference in relation to the decision on her father’s sedition appeal and in the case of kindergarten teacher, M. Indira Gandhi.
She claimed judicial interference in Indira Gandhi’s case when Court of Appeal judge Datuk Dr Hamid Sultan Abu Backer revealed that he had been reprimanded by a top judge for writing a dissenting judgment two years ago in the case of the unilateral conversion of Indira’s children.
In the affidavit-in-reply, Mohd Aizuddin also said that a definitive finding on the allegations could not be made due to the varying accounts given at the internal inquiry.
“Further, the ‘top judge’ concerned had retired, hence no action could be taken under the Judges Code of Ethics 2009, read with the Judges’ Ethics Committee Act 2010,” he said.
He further said that there was no such position as the “Chief Justice Malaysia” under the law.
“Hence the action of the applicant is misplaced and the action should be dismissed with costs,” he said.
The High Court has fixed Feb 25 for case management of the originating summons.