Metramac Corporation Sdn Bhd's lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is facing possible contempt proceedings before the Court of Appeal over a complaint letter he wrote against one of its judges, Justice Gopal Sri Ram.

The lawyer was taken to task today for the letter dated Jan 24, 2006 - which was addressed to Court of Appeal president Abdul Malek Ahmad - in which he made allegations of judicial misconduct and bias on Gopal's part when hearing an appeal between Fawziah Holding Sdn Bhd and Metramac.

A copy of the letter - attached to another letter of complaint to Chief Justice Sheikh Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim - also complained about remarks Gopal made on Metramac co-owner Abdul Halim Saad and former finance minister Daim Zainuddin.

Gopal - who sat with Justice Hashim Yusof and Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin - told Shafee that the court held a 'preliminary view' that his letter was 'prima facie contemptuous' and ordered him to seek legal representation on Feb 23 to argue whether contempt proceedings should be instituted against him.

Stating that the letter was an attempt to 'muzzle judges', he said that the court will also notify the attorney-general to assist the court in making its conclusion on the matter.

Earlier, Gopal (left) chided Shafee for not raising his grouses at the time when he (Gopal) delivered his judgment against Metramac..

"If you are unhappy with the judge's remarks you should have stood up and raised your objections. It is the duty of the counsel if he or she is unhappy with the comments made by the judge to ask the judge to recuse himself.

"But here you sent a letter addressed to the president of the Court of Appeal and the chief justice telling that I had exploded in the proceeding. For what purpose?"

'Send you down'

He told Shafee (left) that although he was not in favour in taking steps to initiate contempt proceedings against lawyers, the court was left with no choice but to protect its integrity.

"I am known to be against contempt (proceedings). I am known - even the Bar Council knows this - to have quashes orders of contempt, not make them. But the dignity of the court must be preserved and we are unanimously of the view that the letters constitute - prima facie - contempt of court."

The court told Shafee that all parties would be allowed to make their arguments before the court delivers its final judgment.

"We are being fairer than normal. Normally, we just order you show cause why you should not be cited for contempt and (upon guilt) send you down for two to three months jail [...] But we are not going to do that to you."

Shafee argued that it is the AG who should institute any contempt proceeding instead of the court.

"I believe the correct thing to do is for the panel to invite the AG to consider if there is contempt in his view. In the event that he concludes that I had acted contemptuous, then as the custodian of public rights, the AG ought to proceed with contempt proceedings. Then I would be able to fully defend myself."

He said that if there was a contempt proceeding, the current panel of judges must be disqualified from hearing the matter.

To this, Gopal replied that the court cannot afford to be silent on the matter and there would be 'grave consequences' if it is not dealt with care.

"We cannot keep quiet on the matter. Somebody may do worse in the future. No one will respect judges. Anybody can write a complaint letter about any judge in any case. The rot - if it has not already - will set in. You cannot muzzle a judge. It's very serious because we are here to serve justice."

Chicken and duck

He then reiterated his view that Shafee should have first raised his complaints in an open court instead of going the back way by writing a complaint to his (Gopal's) superior.

Shafee countered: If I had not written the letter, I would have raised the matter today and would be saying the same things that I had said in the letter. I would be making the complaints in public...

Justice Gopal: Such complaints should be examined in public. If you had raised it there and then, it would have made things different. But here, you complain of conduct of the judge in a letter, sent it to the chief justice [...] as if I am a naughty boy and needed to be caned. If you have a genuine grievance you should do it openly, not this way.

Shafee: But it's the only way I can raise it [...]

Gopal: If your client is unhappy with by statement, you should have stood up and raised your concerns to the panel and tell them they should not be hearing the case. You should feel free to complain if you client wants to. I am not afraid against complaints.

"There have been complaints against judges in the past [...] I am not the first and neither am I going to be the last. But you cannot muzzle a judge."

Gopal also questioned the culture of litigants who are quick to complain about judges' over their 'caustic remarks' made during proceedings.

"You may remember the time of the late (Federal Court judge) Harun Hashim who had once stated that the former AG did not know the difference between a chicken and a duck. No one complained then. Why is the culture now changing?"

Additional conditions

Shafee was then asked by justice Zulkefli to clarify if he had lodged the complaint due to the mention of high-profile individuals in the case.

"I am only acting for Metramac. I am not representing Tun Daim or Tan Sri Halim Saad."

Earlier, the court heard Metramac's application for a stay of execution against the Court of Appeal's judgment which ordered the company to pay Fawziah Holdings RM65 million for loss of advertising rights.

The court, however, did not hear the application after Shafee said that he needed more time to reply to Fawziah Holding's other motion to impose additional conditions in the event the court grants Metramac a stay.

Among the conditions sought by Fawziah Holdings - represented by Cyrus Das - were:

  • for Metramac's RM100 million deposit to be increased to RM200 million;

  • the sum above to be set aside in a joint account of the solicitors representing both parties and

  • the appointment of monitoring accountant.

Although no stay of execution was granted by the court, Das said that his client has undertaken not to execute the judgment until the disposal of the stay application.

The case attracted public attention when Gopal in his judgment accused Halim and his former business partner Anuar Othman of siphoning RM32.5 million from Metramac, under the patronage of Daim.

Halim and Daim have since issued statements of denial.


Metramac scandal background