Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was criticised today for saying that an elections petition judge had tarnished the judiciary's image for revealing that he was directed by his superior to drop two election petitions without a hearing two years ago.

Keadilan deputy president Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that Mahathir should instead have commended Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang for exposing a 'grave shortcoming in the election process' rather than criticising him.

"We have a prime minister who has no understanding or appreciation of the independence of the judiciary," said Chandra in a statement.

"By reprimanding the judge, Mahathir has shown that he has very little respect for the independence and integrity of the judiciary," he added.

Mahathir yesterday said Muhammad, who retired yesterday, had succeeded in dragging the courts into public controversy by revealing in his judgment of the instruction via telephone from his superior.

Muhammad, in declaring invalid the election of former Sabah chief minister Yong Teck Lee in the 1999 state election for Likas on June 8, had said he had refused to obey the instructions as he was not a 'yes man'.

Judicial legitimacy

Following the revelation, retired Chief Justice Eusoff Chin admitted that he was the caller but denied instructing Muhammad to drop the case without a hearing.

Chandra said that Muhammad had ruled on the election petition based on the evidence before him, adding that his judgment raised some 'fundamental questions about electoral rolls'.

"He also, through his judgment, provided judicial legitimacy to a problem which all of us have been aware of for some time - the problem of phantom voters," said Chandra.

To Mahathir's claim that it was 'unprecedented' for Muhammad to include in his judgment his complaints on government agencies, Chandra said the judge had every right to draw from his personal experience to support his judgment.

Muhammad had said in his judgment that many government departments did not respond to inquiry letters and had cited two examples, one involving his son's application for a temporary work permit in Sarawak and another of his daughter who did not receive any acknowledgement for her application for a scholarship.

Mahathir also that Muhammad should have disqualified himself from hearing the case and should have reported the matter (about the phone call) to him (Mahathir).

"Why should he report the matter to Mahathir, who is not his boss. Mahathir should not interfere in matters pertaining to the judiciary," Chandra said in response to this.

Denial syndrome

DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang in his statement said Mahathir was suffering from a 'terminal form of denial syndrome' by suggesting that Muhammad should have informed the premier of the directive.

"If Mahathir could believe this was a real option for Justice Muhammad at the relevant time, then his denial syndrome is even more terminal than I thought," said Lim.

Lim also said that Mahathir was unfair in criticising Muhammad for not immediately lodging a report after receiving the phone directive.

"There was simply nobody superior in any branch of the government Muhammad could trust and to whom he could report to," said Lim.

"During that time (September 1999) , Eusoff was riding high and no allegations, however serious, could touch him," said Lim. Eusoff retired as chief justice last December.