PETALING JAYA: A former director of the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) Malaysia has lodged a police report against a judge for allegedly making false claims in his affidavit.
Lawyer Baljit Sidhu said Sundra Rajoo, who resigned from AIAC last November, wanted a thorough probe as the claims made by Hamid Sultan Abu Backer were serious.
“I accompanied Sundra to the Sentul police station this afternoon to make the report,” Baljit said.
FMT cannot disclose the contents of the police report due to legal implications.
It is learnt that the report has to do with the case of The Leap Modulation Sdn Bhd and PCP Construction Sdn Bhd that went before an adjudicator in the AIAC during Sundra’s tenure.
It stemmed from a payment dispute after PCP allegedly did not receive payment for a project.
The adjudicator gave a decision in favour of PCP. Leap went to the High Court but lost.
Leap appealed to the Court of Appeal and it won on a majority decision, with Hamid in the minority.
However, Hamid had, among others, made observations on the statutory powers conferred on the AIAC and its director.
He had also directed his court registrar to send a copy of his judgment to the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission for investigations.
PCP, being unhappy with the majority decision, applied to the Federal Court for leave to appeal while the AIAC applied to intervene as it was dissatisfied with Hamid’s remarks.
On Nov 7 last year, the Federal Court allowed AIAC’s intervention and ordered the expungement.
In the 65-page affidavit, Hamid claimed parts of his dissenting judgment were expunged and this was “unprecedented in Commonwealth nations”.
Hamid said the conduct of the judiciary in that case required an RCI to see whether a judge’s observation on public law can be expunged in the manner done by the three judges at the Federal Court.
He stated this in the affidavit filed on Feb 14 in support of lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo’s application to declare that the chief justice had failed to defend the integrity and credibility of the judiciary over two alleged incidents of judicial interference.