Abdul Rahman Sebli, who retired as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak on Thursday dropped the bombshell in a farewell speech to lawyers, judicial officers, and legal officials in Kuching on Wednesday.
He said he was a Federal Court judge at the time of the case, and had prepared a draft judgment which he circulated to the other six members of the bench for their review.
“Not long after that, I received an email from a very senior member of the judiciary telling me how wrong my opinion was on the constitutional issue,” he said. “I was a relatively junior (judge) compared to the judges who pressured me,” Rahman said, adding that he was essentially asked to toe the line.
Sarawak Advocates Association president Gurvir Singh Sandhu, who attended the event, confirmed to FMT the contents of the speech.
Rahman said he stood by his draft judgment in the case, which held that the constitutional issue should be decided in favour of the federal government and not the litigant.
His opinion was supported by three other panel members, making it a narrow 4-3 majority decision. Among those in the majority, he said, was the then-president of the Court of Appeal.
However, the majority decision was later set aside in what he described as an unusual move by a three-member Federal Court panel less than a year later.
He hinted that those interested in learning more about the case could refer to the judgment, which was included in a book launched earlier that evening.
Rahman said judicial independence was not only about interference by the executive, but also about a judge’s own peers in the discharge of judicial functions.
“Peer pressure can be a powerful force within the judiciary, potentially affecting judicial decisions and the overall administration of justice,” he said.
Rahman said that during his tenure as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, he remained committed to upholding the rule of law and judicial integrity at all times.
“This must be done not only through the judicial process, but also through the conduct, honesty, and independence of those who serve within the justice system,” he added.
Based on Rahman’s account it appears he was referring to the final appeal by Maria Chin Abdullah, who was barred from travelling overseas in May 2016 without any reasons provided by the immigration department.
Then chief justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat declared that the ban was unlawful. It had been imposed on Maria, who was Bersih 2.0 chairman, on the grounds that she had allegedly disparaged the government.
However, the majority of four judges, with Rahman writing the main judgment, upheld the validity of an ouster clause in the Immigration Act, barring decisions from being challenged in court; he held that judicial power was determined by Parliament.
In her minority ruling, Tengku Maimun declared the clause unconstitutional and said the right to travel fell within the scope of the constitutional guarantee on personal liberty.
She also stated that the Federal Constitution’s clause on the powers of the judiciary should be read in the context of its original meaning, as it represented a basic feature of the constitution, regardless of later amendments.
Article 121 (1) originally vested the judicial power of the federation in the courts. However, an amendment in 1988 removed the words “the judicial power of the federation” and merely stated that the courts would derive their powers from federal law.