The Malaysian Bar has called on the government to restore the full pension and arrears of former High Court judge Dato’ Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah, describing his case as a long-standing miscarriage of justice linked to his disclosures about alleged misconduct within the judiciary.
Malaysian Bar president Anand Raj said the organisation was deeply concerned by reports that Syed Ahmad Idid had not received his pension since his forced resignation from judicial office in July 1996.
According to the Bar, Syed Ahmad Idid had prepared a confidential 33-page memorandum containing 112 allegations involving, among other matters, corruption, abuse of power, personal misconduct and other alleged improprieties within the judiciary.
The Bar said the memorandum was sent to then-Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin and three other individuals.
It also referred to Syed Ahmad Idid’s disclosure concerning a holiday reportedly taken by Mohamed Eusoff with lawyer V K Lingam in New Zealand, which the Bar said raised concerns under the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994.
The Malaysian Bar stressed that the historical allegations cited in its statement were serious and said the manner in which the matter was handled at the time had never been satisfactorily resolved in the public domain.
The Bar also pointed to findings by the 2008 Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V K Lingam video clip, saying the commission had found a strong prima facie basis to conclude that the relationship between Mohamed Eusoff and Lingam was extremely close.
It said the RCI had recommended fresh investigations under applicable laws, but argued that there had been no satisfactory public account of any consequential action.
The Bar further recalled parliamentary debates on the Judges’ Remuneration (Amendment) Bill 2013, when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, then in opposition, defended Syed Ahmad Idid’s conduct as a formal disclosure by a judge to the government concerning alleged judicial misconduct.
The Malaysian Bar said the government now has an opportunity to address what it described as an unresolved injustice.
The Bar noted that in 2008, the government made ex gratia payments to former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and five former Supreme Court judges affected by the 1988 judicial crisis.
Syed Ahmad Idid, however, was not included in that exercise.
“This is a miscarriage of justice,” the Malaysian Bar said, urging the government to restore his full pension, including all arrears due.
The organisation said such a move would not undo the personal and professional consequences suffered by Syed Ahmad Idid, but would affirm the principle that integrity and disclosures made in the public interest should not be punished
The Malaysian Bar also used the case to renew calls for reform of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010.
It noted that the Act did not exist when Syed Ahmad Idid made his disclosures in 1996 and does not operate retrospectively.
Even today, the Bar argued, whistleblower protection remains too narrowly tied to disclosures made to enforcement agencies and does not provide sufficiently comprehensive protection against retaliation.
The organisation said Malaysia should strengthen the law in line with its obligations under the United Nations Convention against Corruption, including protections for individuals who report suspected corruption in good faith.
It also backed calls for a legal standard based on reasonable belief and for stronger safeguards against confidentiality rules being used to conceal misconduct or punish those making disclosures.
The Malaysian Bar said the episode also reinforced the case for separating the offices of the Attorney General and Public Prosecutor.
It argued that the Public Prosecutor’s office must be structurally independent and beyond suspicion, particularly where decisions on investigations or prosecutions involve holders of public office.
The statement also referred to former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim’s warning that the damage caused by the 1988 judicial crisis could take a generation to overcome.
The Bar said strengthening judicial independence, whistleblower protection and prosecutorial independence remained essential to preventing a repeat of past institutional failures.
“Restoring Dato’ Syed Ahmad Idid’s pension cannot return the years taken from him. It can, however, affirm a principle indispensable to an independent judiciary and the rule of law,” Anand said.
The Malaysian Bar said the judiciary must remain steadfast in upholding the rule of law and must be seen to be incorruptible.
