4.
Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out
what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh
was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal
against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal
organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO
in his judgements.

5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not
been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim
Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim
injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as
President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement
favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against
Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good
for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election
results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether
the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO
Baru would not be affected.

6. The truth is that the case
against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan
Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and
insulting to him.

7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had
written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some
repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.

8. This
alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was
could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the
noise.

9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent
copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not
have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure
on him.

10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP
Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime
Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.

11.
In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are
disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the
Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside
Parliament.”

12. He went on to say in his letter “the
accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us
mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our
functions orderly and properly.”

13. He asserted that he and
all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly
because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under
the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient
in the interest of the nation.”

14. This statement was
obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the
University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he
complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service
category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law”
and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom
is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”

15. He went on to
say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a
lesser role and function to play than the roles played by the
politicians.”

16. Further he said, “This matter becomes
aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are
related to judicial matters because this will result in a very
important question that is interference with the independence of the
judiciary.”

17. Again when making a speech at the launching of
a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun
Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional
principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning
the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this
guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be
under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some
of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great
deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence
but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of
deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the
court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”

18.
“Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial
independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is
the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”

19.
“What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from
disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility
and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which
could only result in aggravating the situation.”

20. These two
speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988
respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March
1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak
about his accusations against the Government in public because he
maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as
judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be
patient in the interest of the nation.”

21. All his statements
in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime
Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.

22.
Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the
accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and
left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge
our functions orderly and properly.”

23. In Section 125 of the
Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a
judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any
other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”

24.
By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his
functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to
be a judge.

25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang
di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations
to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge
from office.”

26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were
regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting
particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.

27. During
one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance
over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas
from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his
own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter,
regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.

28.
To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord
President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was
best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the
Attorney-General.

29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints
against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised
the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in
accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest
that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government
and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a
cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first
thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I
meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took
umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang
them, I suppose).

30. I also criticised judges for making laws
themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these
as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the
Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the
laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution,
the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.

31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.

32.
It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of
the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice
is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).

33.
The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the
judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the
other endures it.”

34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was
subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on
how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.

35.
Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I
did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only
acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.

36.
The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of
the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could
not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the
complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.

37.
Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former
judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges
in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief
Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable
Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of
Singapore.

38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan
Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee
Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired
Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.

39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.

40.
It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the
Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the
findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.

41.
What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not
in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the
launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational
Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and
dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which
could only result in aggravating the situation.”

42. The five
judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the
approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the
findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they
cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the
judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear
an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to
determine his position.

43. The Supreme Court of five judges
with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application
by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and
unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from
submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry
to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.

44.
Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five
judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.

45.
I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me
by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so
after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him
removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But
throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or
my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.

46.
I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I
tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal.
He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.

47. I
then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I
had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with
judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.

48.
When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated,
they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by
Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions.
They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions
were computed from the time they left.

49. These are the facts
relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow
judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.

50. I write this
to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to
stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and
they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of
Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly
many who so readily condemn me were judges.

KISAH TUN SALLEH

1.
Apabila Kerajaan memberi bayaran ex-gratia kepada para hakim yang
terlibat di dalam penyingkiran Tun Salleh Abas sebagai Ketua Hakim
Mahkamah Malaysia, persoalan yang perlu dijawab ialah adakah ianya
kerana Kerajaan kesal terhadap sesuatu yang berlaku di zaman sebelum
Kerajaan ini berkuasa atau adakah ianya langkah terdesak untuk
mengembalikan sokongan selepas keputusan buruk Pilihanraya Umum 2008.

2.
Jika Kerajaan hari ini merasa kesal, bayaran ex-gratia (memandangkan
tiada lagi perkataan yang lebih sesuai) sepatutnya dibuat selepas ianya
mula berkuasa. Jelas sekali ia hanya merasa kesal baru-baru ini,
selepas Menteri baru yang dipertanggungjwabkan ke atas hal-ehwal
kehakiman (yang juga pernah digantung kerana penglibatan dalam politik
wang) mencadangkannya sebagai langkah untuk memenangi hati Majlis
Peguam.

3. Tetapi apakah yang menyebabkan perasaan kesal
“politik” di pihak Kerajaan ini? Adakah kerana berlaku ketidak adilan?
Atau adakah Kerajaan yang sebelumnya berlaku berat sebelah atau
melanggar undang-undang?

4. Kebanyakan orang tahu tentang
penyingkiran Tun Salleh tetapi tidak ramai yang mengambil berat tentang
apa yang sebenarnya berlaku. Sesetengah pihak percaya yang tindakan
terhadap Tun Salleh disebabkan cadangannya membentuk panel 12 hakim
untuk mendengar rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim yang telah
mendapati UMNO sebagai sebuah organisasi haram. Ada pihak lain yang
percaya ianya kerana beliau tidak menyebelahi UMNO di dalam
penghakimannya.

5. Tidak ada satu pun yang benar. Tun Salleh
tidak berat sebelah terhadap Kerajaan. Dia telah menolak permohonan Lim
Kit Siang di dalam kes yang melibatkan UEM dan Kerajaan, terhadap
injunksi sementara yang dibuat mahkamah rendah di dalam keputusan
penghakiman yang panjang yang dibuat olehnya sebagai Presiden Mahkamah
Agong (sekarang Mahkamah Persekutuan). Di dalam kes-kes lain
penghakiman beliau banyak berpihak kepada Kerajaan. Berkenaan dengan
panel untuk mendengar rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Harun Hashim,
panel yang lebih besar mungkin lebih baik bagi UMNO yang hanya mahukan
pengesahan keputusan pemilihan yang akan menjadikan saya Presiden dan
(Tun) Ghafar Baba Timbalan Presiden. Samada panel menolak atau menerima
keputusan Hakim Harun, ianya tidak akan memberi kesan terhadap UMNO dan
UMNO Baru.

6. Sebenarnya kes terhadap Tun Salleh tercetus
kerana surat-suratnya kepada Yang di Pertuan Agong yang baginda anggap
melanggar tatasusila serta menghina.

7. Di dalam surat
pertamanya, Tun Salleh telah menulis kepada DYMM YDP Agong untuk
mengadu berkenaan bunyi bising kerana kerja-kerja baikpulih di Istana
YDP Agong yang terletak berdekatan dengan rumah Tun Salleh.

8.
Ini sahaja boleh dianggap melanggar tatasusila. Seseorang yang begitu
kanan kedudukannya boleh meminta izin untuk mengadap YDP Agong dan
menyampaikan aduannya secara lisan.

9. Untuk memburukkan lagi
perbuatan menghina Istana dia telah menghantar salinan suratnya kepada
Raja-Raja lain. Ini seolah-olah menunjukkan yang dia tidak punyai
keyakinan terhadap YDP Agong dan menghendakkan Raja-Raja Melayu lain
untuk mengadakan tekanan terhadap YDP Agong.

10. Ini
kemudiannya disusuli dengan satu lagi surat kepada YDP Agong yang
mengadu berkenaan tindak-tanduk eksekutif iaitu Perdana Menteri.
Salinan surat ini juga telah dihantar kepada Raja-Raja.

11. Di
dalam surat ini, Tun Salleh telah menyatakan antara lain; “All of us
(the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations
made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but
inside Parliament.” [Kami (para hakim) kecewa dengan pelbagai kenyataan
dan tuduhan yang dibuat Perdana Menteri terhadap badan kehakiman bukan
sahaja di luar malahan di dalam Parlimen]

12. Dia seterusnya
berkata di dalam suratnya “the accusations and comments have brought
shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of
being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
[tuduhan-tuduhan dan kenyataan-kenyataan yang dibuat telah memalukan
kami semua dan telah meninggalkan kesan kekacauan mental sehinggakan
kami tidak dapat menjalankan tugas kami dengan tertib dan teratur].

13.
Dia menegaskan yang dia dan para hakim semua “do not like to reply to
the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our
position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only
proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.” [tidak mahu
membalas secara terbuka tuduhan kerana tindakan tersebut tidak
bersesuaian dengan kedudukan kami sebagai hakim di bawah
Perlembagaan…dan oleh itu adalah lebih baik kami bersabar demi
kepentingan Negara].

14. Kenyataan ini nyata tidak benar
kerana sebelum surat tersebut diutuskan, di dalam satu ucapan di
Universiti Malaya di mana dia dianugerah ijazah doktor kehormat, dia
telah merungut berkenaan “the judiciary being placed in the social
service category” (badan kehakiman ditempatkan di bawah kategori
perkhidmatan sosial) dengan membuat kesimpulan bahawa ini tidak
bertepatan dengan “the rule of law” (kedaulatan undang-undang) dan oleh
itu “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is
guaranteed and work is not disturbed” (keutamaan mahkamah harus
diperbetulkan agar kebebasan dijamin dan kerja tidak terganggu).

15.
Dia seterusnya berkata “the officers of the public service (i.e.
judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play then the roles
played by the politicians” (pegawai perkhidmatan awam iaitu para hakim
tidak memainkan peranan yang kurang pentingnya berbanding yang
dimainkan ahli politik).

16. Beliau juga berkata, “This matter
becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an
official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a
very important question that is interference with the independence of
the judiciary” (Keadaan ini diburukkan lagi jika hak yang terlibat
dalam keputusan yang dibuat para pegawai adalah berkaitan soal
penghakiman kerana ini akan menimbulkan soalan penting iaitu campur
tangan dalam kebebasan kehakiman.

17. Sekali lagi apabila
berucap semasa melancarkan buku “Law, Justice and the Judiciary,
Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh berkata, antara lain, “The vital
constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really
arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution.
But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our
independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” (Prinsip
Perlembagaan yang penting sudahpun termaktub oleh itu tidak timbul soal
kedudukan kehakiman di bawah Perlembagaan. Tetapi baru-baru ini
perlindungan ini telah menjadi satu isu dan kebebasan kita ternampak
seolah-olah sedang dicabar) Beliau menambah, “This is amply borne out
by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a
great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and
independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our
responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not
mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all
the time…….” (Ini terhasil daripada sesetengah kenyataan yang dibuat
baru-baru ini yang telah benar-benar memalukan badan kehakiman.
Kenyataan tersebut bukan sahaja mempersoalkan keberkecualian dan
kebebasan kita, tetapi juga nilai badan kehakiman sebagai sebuah
institusi…tidak semestinya keputusan mahkamah harus sentiasa
menyebelahi Kerajaan)

18. Selain itu beliau menyambung, “the
problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by
the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of
the Government.” (Masalah mengekalkan kebebasan kehakiman dibuat lebih
rumit kerana badan kehakiman adalah yang paling lemah diantara
ketiga-tiga cabang Kerajaan).

19. “What matters most in order to
enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we
judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or
tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating
the situation.” (Apa yang penting untuk selamatkan system ini daripada
malapetaka ialah kita para hakim mesti bertindak dengan penuh
tanggungjawab dan hormat dan tidak dipengaruhi tindakan gelojoh yang
mungkin akan memburukkan lagi keadaan)

20. Kedua-dua ucapan
tersebut disampaikan pada 1hb Ogos 1987 dan 12hb Januari 1988. Tetapi
surat Tun Salleh kepada YDP Agong bertarikh 26hb Mac 1988. Seperti yang
saya nyatakan tadi adalah tidak benar beliau tidak bercakap berkenaan
tuduhannya terhadap Kerajaan di hadapan khalayak ramai hanya kerana dia
mempertahankan yang “tindakan tersebut tidak bersesuaian dengan
kedudukan kami sebagai hakim di bawah Perlembagaan” dan “oleh itu
adalah lebih baik kami bersabar demi kepentingan Negara”.

21.
Semua kenyataannya di dalam dua ucapan yang disampaikan jelas
mengandungi kecamannya terhadap Perdana Menteri dan Kerajaan, jauh
lebih lama sebelum dianya menulis surat kepada YDP Agong.

22.
Satu lagi perkara yang dibangkitkan di dalam suratnya kepada YDP Agong
ialah “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us
(judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable
to discharge our functions orderly and properly.” [tuduhan-tuduhan dan
kenyataan-kenyataan yang dibuat telah memalukan kami dan telah
meninggalkan kesan kekacauan mental sehinggakan kami tidak dapat
menjalankan tugas kami dengan tertib dan teratur].

23. Di bawah
Seksyen 125 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, klausa (3) peruntukan untuk
memecat hakim, selain daripada salahlaku termasuk ketidakupayaan tubuh
badan atau pemikiran atau lain lain sebab, untuk menjalankan
tugas-tugas jawatan dengan saksama.

24. Tun Salleh sendiri
mengakui yang beliau tidak terdaya untuk melakukan tugas-tugasnya
dengan teratur dan tertib. Oleh itu beliau tidak layak untuk terus
menjadi hakim.

25. Seksyen 125, klausa 4 memperuntukkan kuasa
YDP Agong melantik Tribunal dan boleh atas nasihat Tribunal
menyingkirkan hakim daripada kedudukannya.

26. Kedua-dua surat
daripada Tun Salleh dianggap YDP Agong sebagai tidak sesuai dan
menghina terutamanya kerana salinannya dihantar kepada Raja-Raja Melayu
lain.

27. Di dalam salah satu daripada mesyuarat mingguan saya
dengan YDP Agong, baginda telah menyatakan ketidak puasan hatinya
terhadap surat-surat tersebut dan telah meminta saya menyingkir Tun
Salleh Abas daripada jawtan Ketua Hakim Negara. Baginda telah menulis
sendiri permintaan baginda di ruangan tepi (margin) surat pertama Tun
Salleh berkenaan dengan bunyi bising daripada kerja-kerja yang sedang
dijalankan di kediaman YDP Agong.

28. Bagi YDP Agong ianya
adalah perkara mudah. Baginda yang melantik Ketua Hakim dan mempunyai
hak untuk menyingkirkan beliau. Saya fikir adalah lebih baik bagi saya
merujuk perkara ini ke Kabinet dan nasihat Peguam Negara didapati.

29.
Saya mengaku rungutan Tun Salleh terhadap saya di dalam suratnya juga
menimbulkan ketidak puasan hati saya. Adalah benar yang saya telah
mengkritik hakim-hakim kerana mentafsir undang-undang yang dilulus
Kerajaan yang tidak menepati matlamat atau objektif undang-undang itu.
Saya ada mencadangkan bahawa jika undang-undang yang ditafsirkan
berlainan lain daripada matlamat asal sepertimana yang Kerajaan dan
penggubal undang-undang harapkan, maka undang-undang tersebut akan
dipinda. Di dalam satu mesyuarat Kabinet saya berseloroh dengan memetik
kata-kata Shakespeare, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.”
(Pertama sekali kita gantung semua peguam). Hanya orang yang dungu
sahaja akan mengambil bulat-bulat apa yang saya katakan. Tetapi
rupa-rupanya para peguam dan hakim telah merasa tersinggung akan apa
yang saya kata dan telah menganggap saya sebagai musuh mereka (yang
akan menggantung mereka agaknya!).

30. Saya juga telah
mengkritik hakim kerana menggubal undang-undang sendiri menerusi
tafsiran mereka dan kemudiannya mengguna tafsiran mereka untuk rujukan.
Saya percaya pemisahan kuasa bermakna penggubal undang-undang akan
menggubal undang-undang manakala hakim akan menggunapakai undang-undang
tersebut. Sudah tentu jika undang-undang digubal melanggar peruntukan
perlembagaan, yang merupakan undang-undang tertinggi Negara, maka hakim
bolehlah menolaknya.

31. Didapati juga sesetengah hakim
menolak membicarakan kes-kes melibat hukuman mati, dan diserah secara
tidak adil kepada hakim-hakim lain.

32. Kebanyakan pakar
undang-undang berpendapat “It is not wrong for any member of the public
or the administration to criticise the judiciary. Justice is not a
cloistered virtue.” (Tidak salah bagi sesiapa samada dianya orang awam
atau ahli pentadbiran untuk mengkritik kehakiman. Keadilan bukan
kesucian yang terkurung) – Peter Aldridge Williams QC

33.
Penulis di atas juga telah memetik McKenna J “There is no difference
between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the
law and the other endures it” (Tidak ada perbezaan di antara hakim dan
orang ramai kecuali yang satu mentadbir undang-undang dan yang satu
lagi menerima kesannya).

34. Tetapi Tun Salleh berpendapat
bahawa saya cuba menghakis kebebasan kehakiman apabila saya menyatakan
pandangan saya bagaimana hakim mengecewakan matlamat asal penggubal
undang-undang.

35. Menerusi pelbagai sumber saya dengar akan
kemarahan hakim-hakim terhadap saya. Tetapi saya tidak mengambil
apa-apa tindakan, jauh sekali untuk menyingkir Tun Salleh. Saya hanya
bertindak apabila YDP Agong menyatakan rasa tidak puas hati berkenaan
dua surat tersebut.

36. Kabinet bersetuju yang peruntukan
perlembagaan haruslah dipatuhi. Oleh itu saya telahpun menasihatkan YDP
Agong bahawa Tun Salleh hanya boleh disingkir jika YDP Agong melantik
Tribunal untuk mendengar segala rungutan terhadapnya (Tun Salleh) dan
membuat cadangan kepada YDP Agong.

37. Selepas YDP Agong
bersetuju, Kerajaan memilih enam hakim dan bekas hakim untuk
pertimbangan YDP Agong. Ahlinya termasuk hakim Negara asing yang
diwakili Yang Arif Hakim K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Ketua Hakim Sri Lanka dan
Yang Arif Hakim T.S. Sinnathuray, Hakim Kanan Mahkamah Agong Singapura.

38. Pengerusi tribunal ialah Hakim Besar (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato
Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. Lain-lain ahli terdiri daripada Dato Sri Lee
Hun Hoe, Hakim Besar (Borneo) dan dua orang bekas hakim iaitu Tan Sri
Abdul Aziz bin Zain dan Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail.

39. Penyertaan hakim asing adalah untuk mempastikan yang tribunal tidak mengambil sikap berat sebelah.

40.
Malangnya Tun Salleh Abas enggan hadir di hadapan Tribunal. Sebaliknya
dia mengharapkan yang rakan-rakannya akan cuba untuk menghalang
keputusan Tribunal daripada disampaikan kepada YDP Agong.

41.
Apa yang dilakukan kelima-lima hakim yang bersimpati kepadanya sudah
tentu melanggar apa yang Tun Salleh utarakan semasa berucap di majlis
pelancaran “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend”
apabila dia berkata; “we as judges must act with responsibility and
dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which
could only result in aggravating the situation” (kita para hakim mesti
bertindak dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan terhormat dan tidak
dipengaruhi tindakan gelojoh yang mungkin akan memburukkan lagi
keadaan).

42. Kelima-lima hakim tersebut telah mengenepikan
peraturan dan prosidur dan keperluan untuk mendapat kelulusan Pemangku
Ketua Hakim, disamping menunggu keputusan Hakim Ajaib Singh di atas
perkara yang sama. Sebaliknya mereka membatalkan persidangan mahkamah
di Kota Bahru yang telah dijadualkan untuk mereka dan telah mngadakan
persidangan Mahkamah Agong di Kuala Lumpur untuk mendengar aplikasi Tun
Salleh Abbas untuk mengenepikan prosiding bagi menentukan kedudukannya.

43. Lima hakim Mahkamah Agong yang diketuai Tan Sri Wan
Sulaiman mendengar aplikasi ex-parte oleh peguam Tun Salleh, berehat
seketika, dan kemudiannya kembali dan sebulat suara mengeluarkan arahan
menghentikan Tribunal daripada menyerahkan apa-apa cadangan, laporan
atau nasihat berkenaan siasatan kepada YDP Agong.

44. Berikutan
itu, pemangku Ketua Hakim telah menubuhkan satu panel lima hakim
Mahkamah Agong untuk mengenepikan keputusan Mahkamah Wan Suleiman.

45.
Saya ingin ulangi yang walaupun Tun Salleh mengkritik saya secara
terbuka, saya tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadapnya. Saya hanya
berbuat demikian setelah dia menghina YDP Agong dan baginda meminta
supaya dianya disingkirkan. Tentulah akan ada yang berkata bahawa saya
telah mempengaruhi YDP Agong. Tetapi selama 22 tahun saya tidak pernah
melibatkan Raja-Raja di dalam politik atau masalah peribadi. Rekod
tertera untuk sesiapa menelitinya.

46. Saya amat mengambil
berat terhadap penyingkiran Tun Salleh secara paksa. Saya telah cuba
dapatkan Tun Salleh untuk meletak jawatan bagi mengelak sebarang
skandal. Pada mulanya dia bersetuju, tetapi telah menarik balik
keesokan harinya.

47. Saya telah mendapatkan kelulusan
keahlian Tribunal. Saya telah mendapat nasihat Peguam Negara dan pihak
lain yang rapat dengan hakim-hakim. Setelah Tribunal ditubuhkan,
penglibatan saya berakhir.

48. Apabila Tun Salleh dan
hakim-hakim yang lain diberhentikan perkhidmatan mereka, mereka tidak
sepatutnya menerima pencen. Tetapi selepas menerima rayuan Peguam
Negara, saya bersetuju yang mereka dibayar pencen penuh. Mereka tidak
mengalami apa-apa kerugian wang ringgit dan pencen mereka dikira
daripada tarikh mereka meninggalkan jawatan.

49. Inilah fakta
bekaitan penyingkiran Tun Salleh. Beliau dan rakan-rakan hakimnyalah
yang telah membawa penghinaan kepada badan kehakiman.

50. Saya
menulis untuk merekodkan peristiwa sebagaimana ianya berlaku. Saya
tidak harap pengkritik saya akan berhenti menuduh saya menghancurkan
badan kehakiman. Mereka pendakwa saya dan mereka juga adalah hakim
saya. Bagi mereka saya tetap Idi Amin Malaysia sebagaimana yang di
dakwa Tun Salleh di dalam bukunya “May Day for Justice”. Malangnya
ramai yang begitu tersedia mengutuk saya terdiri daripada hakim-hakim.