KUALA LUMPUR – Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has strongly refuted claims by former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Sebli, that he experienced internal pressure during a high-profile Federal Court case in 2021.
In a statement today, LFL adviser N. Surendran labelled the suggestion of judicial interference as “plainly wrong” and “incomprehensible,” especially considering that the judge allegedly involved in the interference was also part of the same seven-member panel.
“How can a judge interfere in a case she herself was involved in deciding? Such a suggestion defies logic,” Surendran said.
Abdul Rahman, who retired last week, had recounted during his farewell event in Kuching that a “very senior” judge had sent him a harshly worded email criticising his draft judgment and pressuring him to “toe the line.”
He characterised the incident as an assault on judicial independence and warned of the perils of internal pressure within the courts – a form of harassment he argued was more damaging than executive interference.
Surendran, however, emphasised that discussions, disagreements, and attempts to persuade colleagues are standard practice in multi-judge appellate courts.
“These exchanges are part of the usual judicial decision-making process, not just in Malaysia, but also in Supreme Courts in countries like the UK and the US,” he noted.
He explained that judges often circulate draft majority or minority opinions in an effort to persuade their peers to reconsider their positions, labelling this as a healthy aspect of judicial deliberation, not interference.
Surendran also found it peculiar that a Federal Court judge, protected by job security and constitutional safeguards, would raise concerns about “peer pressure.”
“A Federal Court judge is not a vulnerable individual who should be swayed by peer pressure,” he said.
While acknowledging that true judicial interference is a serious issue that must be guarded against, Surendran warned against confusing it with legitimate internal deliberation.
Abdul Rahman had previously claimed that after his original ruling, which favoured the Federal Government, a new panel reversed the decision in a 4–3 vote, with the ruling written by a judge who had initially dissented. He also alleged that efforts were made to issue show-cause letters to him and two other majority judges and that a tribunal might have been formed against them had it not been for “divine intervention.”
These remarks sparked support from former attorney general Tan Sri Apandi Ali and Umno politician Datuk Puad Zarkashi, both of whom backed Abdul Rahman’s claims and regarded them as clear evidence of interference.
However, Surendran cautioned that such interpretations misrepresent the functioning of the judiciary.
“Judicial interference must never be trivialised,” he said.
“It should not be confused with the entirely appropriate and necessary internal process of discussion and deliberation among judges.” – July 28, 2025