The 1988 Judicial Crisis: The Dismissed Lord President

The Supreme Court had already set the date.

On June 13, 1988, nine judges were to sit together to hear the appeal on the old UMNO party case.

The appellants wanted to ask: Was that party election, won by a margin of just 43 votes, valid?

The court had to first confront a larger issue: Now that the old UMNO had been ruled an unlawful society by the High Court, did it still possess a legal identity that could be salvaged?

But when June 13 arrived, the nine judges did not convene.

The man presiding over the Supreme Court had already been suspended.^1,2,3,4

Two views, in brief

Opponents of the government at the time would summarise it this way: Just as the Supreme Court was about to rule on the fate of the old UMNO, Mahathir's government initiated proceedings to suspend Salleh Abas; five judges who later tried to temporarily block the tribunal's report were also suspended. Thus, they viewed the whole affair as the executive branch using tribunals to weaken judicial independence.^1,2,5,3

Supporters of the government would summarise it this way: Article 125 of the Constitution originally allowed a tribunal to investigate whether a judge was unable to discharge the functions of his office or was guilty of misbehaviour; judges are not immune from accountability, and Salleh was not directly fired by a letter from the Prime Minister, but through a tribunal process and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.^1,5

This article will not seek out who shouted the loudest. We will look at that letter, the nine-member bench, the two tribunals, and the temporary injunction of the five judges in chronological order, and then judge whether this formally existing procedure operated with enough independence and fairness in practice.

That Letter Was Not Written for the Newspapers#

The matter did not begin only with the party case.

In the late 1980s, friction arose between the executive branch and the courts over several rulings. The government pushed for a constitutional amendment, removing the original phrasing in Article 121 of the _Federal Constitution_ that "the judicial power of the Federation shall be vested in... High Courts," changing it so that the courts only possessed the jurisdiction and powers conferred by federal law. The amendment came into force on June 10, 1988.^1,3,6,7

On March 25, judges in Kuala Lumpur met to discuss the impact of the Prime Minister's public criticisms of the judiciary. The meeting agreed that Lord President Salleh Abas should write a letter to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the state rulers expressing the judges' concerns about executive-judiciary relations.

The letter was sent on March 26.

It was not a public manifesto, nor a newspaper interview.

It was a private letter written by the head of the judiciary to the head of state who appointed him. The panel of legal experts who later participated in an independent review pointed out that the draft was prepared with the assistance of three judges, and no one present at the meeting objected to sending the letter; the International Commission of Jurists also opined during the year of the incident that expressing concerns about judicial independence to the head of state via a private letter should not in itself constitute "misbehaviour".^1,5

Yet this letter later became one of the main charges against Salleh.

The Nine Chairs Were Not Yet Filled#

Around May 23, Salleh decided to have a panel of nine Supreme Court judges hear the appeal of the 11 UMNO members, scheduling the case for June 13. The registry had already notified the lawyers to prepare six extra sets of the appeal records.^1,2

On May 25, Prime Minister Mahathir wrote to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong advising the suspension of Salleh under Article 125 of the Constitution and the establishment of a tribunal to investigate if he should be removed. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong consented on the same day, with the suspension taking effect from May 26.^1,5

On May 27, Salleh received the formal notice.

On the same day, Acting Lord President Abdul Hamid Omar cancelled the scheduled hearing dates for the UMNO party case and the Karpal Singh case.^1,2

The sequence of these few days later became the centre of controversy.

The independent review panel concluded twenty years later that the rapid acceleration of the suspension process right after the nine-judge bench was scheduled constituted strong evidence of improper motive. That is a conclusion drawn by the review panel based on documents, not a subsequent court ruling overturning the original tribunal.^1,3

We do not have to accept its conclusion right away.

Just looking at the timeline, the problem is already there:

When a case is about to be heard by the Supreme Court, who has the power to decide whether the person presiding over that court can still sit there?

The First Tribunal#

The Constitution does not allow the government to summarily dismiss a Supreme Court judge with an ordinary official letter.

Article 125 stipulates that a judge may only be removed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of a special tribunal appointed to investigate the judge's inability to discharge his duties or misbehaviour. On the surface, the system set a high bar: political leaders could not single-handedly accomplish a dismissal.^1,5

The problem shifted to how the tribunal was constituted and how it conducted its hearings.

The first tribunal was chaired by Abdul Hamid Omar. He was then Chief Justice of Malaya and the person acting as Lord President after Salleh's suspension. Salleh's lawyers consequently raised objections, including conflict of interest, and questioned the seniority and position of some members. The objections were not accepted.^1,5

There were five charges in total, covering two of Salleh's speeches, his handling of a case, the March 26 letter, as well as his public statements post-suspension and an application for early retirement which he submitted and then withdrew.

The tribunal began hearings on June 29 and completed them by the afternoon of June 30; the report was submitted to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on July 7. On August 8, Salleh formally received the notice of removal.^1,5

When the independent review re-examined these materials item by item twenty years later, it concluded that there was insufficient material to constitute triable charges, and that the procedure, composition, and conclusions suffered from serious flaws.^1,3

But in July 1988, Salleh did not yet know when the final notice would come.

His lawyers were still searching for an unclosed door.

July 2, The Supreme Court Convenes Urgently#

Salleh applied to the High Court for an injunction prohibiting the first tribunal from proceeding to submit its report.

At noon on July 2, the High Court postponed the case again, refusing to first grant a limited order to maintain the status quo. The lawyers feared that by the time the court resumed on Monday, the tribunal might have already sent out the report, rendering the application meaningless.^1,2

They turned to the Supreme Court.

The most senior Supreme Court judge remaining in Kuala Lumpur at the time, Wan Suleiman, urgently convened a five-member bench. Sitting with him were Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Azmi Kamaruddin, Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh, and George Seah.

The hearing began at 12:50 PM. After about a 30-minute hearing, the five judges unanimously issued a limited injunction: until further order from the court, the first tribunal was barred from submitting its report, recommendations, and advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.^1,2

The injunction did not rule in Salleh's favour.

It merely stopped the clock, demanding that the court first review the procedure before final action was taken.

But four days later, all five judges who issued the order were suspended.^1,2,8

The Judges Became the Second Group on Trial#

Acting Lord President Abdul Hamid Omar represented to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that the actions of the five judges on July 2 constituted gross misbehaviour sufficient to initiate removal proceedings. Thus, a second tribunal was formed.^1,2

Here lies the easiest point for later writers to mistakenly summarise in one sentence.

All five judges were suspended, but not all five were ultimately removed.

The second tribunal rejected the joint charges of conspiracy and bias towards Salleh, completely exonerating Azmi Kamaruddin, Eusoffe Abdoolcader, and Wan Hamzah. Wan Suleiman and George Seah, however, were recommended for removal for reasons including leaving their scheduled Supreme Court hearings in Kota Bharu.^1,2

Therefore, the 1988 judicial crisis ultimately saw the removal of three senior judges:

Salleh Abas, Wan Suleiman, and George Seah.

The other three Supreme Court judges who had been suspended were later allowed to resume their duties.^1,2,8

The independent review twenty years later considered that even if the legal interpretations adopted by the second tribunal were debatable, the two judges at most could have committed an error of legal judgment at the time; in the absence of improper motive, this was insufficient to constitute judicial misbehaviour.^1,3

What Was Changed Was Not Just a List of Names#

The consequences of a judicial crisis are hard to count like ballots.

You can count three people dismissed.

But you can hardly count how many judges from then on paused for an extra second, remembering the outcome of 1988, when facing government cases.

Legally, after the phrase "judicial power... shall be vested in... High Courts" was removed from Article 121, the debate over whether the courts only possessed the powers that Parliament was willing to grant lasted for nearly thirty years. Later Federal Court rulings re-emphasised that judicial power derives from the constitutional structure and cannot be transferred to the executive or legislature merely by deleting a few words in 1988.^3,6,7

This shows that words can be deleted, but the problems will not disappear.

Who interprets the Constitution?

Who determines whether government acts are lawful?

When the people making those judgments can also lose their jobs because of their judgments, how much actual weight is left in the separation of powers on paper?

The Writer's Verdict

The judgment of this site, signed, and you are free to disagree. The deepest wound of 1988 was not that the courts lost to the government once, but that the judges knew from then on: those who review power might first be reviewed by power. The Constitution does indeed allow for tribunals to remove judges guilty of serious misconduct. Judges cannot be immune from accountability just because their position is exalted. But precisely because the tribunal holds the enormous power to remove the head of the judiciary, its composition, conflicts of interest, evidentiary thresholds, and procedural fairness must be stricter, not looser, than ordinary disciplinary inquiries. The first tribunal dealt with Salleh; five Supreme Court judges attempted to temporarily block it from submitting its report, and then the second tribunal dealt with these five judges. The positions of the overseer, the acting head, the potential successor, and the overseen constantly overlapped. When the procedure itself makes it impossible for the public to distinguish who is trying whom, judicial authority has already been damaged, regardless of what the final ruling writes.

The Evidence for This Article, This Site Needs to Explain to You#

The 2008 report is not a 1988 court overturning the case. It was an independent expert review commissioned by international and local legal bodies; it has important evidentiary value but holds no legal power to quash the dismissals of that year. The text explicitly attributes the conclusions to the review panel.^1,3

"Nine judges" refers to the bench prepared to hear the UMNO party case. It did not actually sit on June 13; following Salleh's suspension, the acting Lord President cancelled the date.^1,2

"Five suspended, two removed, three reinstated" cannot be compressed into "five judges were removed." The members of the five-judge bench were all suspended; Wan Suleiman and George Seah were removed, while the other three were exonerated. Along with Salleh, a total of three senior judges were removed during the crisis.^1,2,8

The nature of the March 26 letter is disputed. The first tribunal listed it as a charge; the International Commission of Jurists and the 2008 review panel considered that a head of judiciary expressing collective concerns to the head of state via private letter does not constitute misbehaviour. This article clearly distinguishes the charge from the subsequent evaluations.^1,5

The long-term legal effect of Article 121 is not something that can be summed up by saying "judicial power was completely annihilated." The 1988 amendment did indeed remove the original empowering text; but later Federal Courts affirmed that judicial power still belongs to the courts. The text presents the textual changes and jurisprudential developments, avoiding passing off political commentary as current legal conclusions.^3,6,7

This article is marked sensitive: true. Before going online, sentences involving living politicians, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, judicial motives, religious cases, and constitutional powers must be reviewed sentence-by-sentence by Jay.

Next article: While the storm in the courts had not completely cleared, another much earlier pledge of the nation reached its deadline. The New Economic Policy was originally designed to restructure society and eradicate poverty over twenty years; when the deadline arrived, how should that "thirty percent" report card actually be graded?