Justice Pao

Thursday, July 25, 2024

Newly appointed Judicial Commissioner and former Industrial Court president Eddie Yeo's conduct while at the Industrial Court raises suspicion that he was involved in covering-up for Vincent Tan in yet another case of judicial interference

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Former Industrial Court president Eddie Yeo and lawyer Saheran Suhendran Sockanathan Abdullah have been appointed judicial commissioners.

They took their oaths of office before Justice Akhtar Tahir, the most senior judge in the High Court of Malaya, as they will be posted to courts in the peninsula.

They will serve the judiciary on a two-year contract.

Yeo, 63, a law graduate from Universiti Malaya, was with the Attorney-General’s Chambers and served mostly in the prosecution and civil divisions.

He was the Customs Appeals Tribunal chairman between 2015 and 2017, and the Industrial Court president for three years until he retired in 2020.

This writer requested answers from Yeo while he was Industrial Court President but never received a response. It took his departure (and that of his immediate successors) for the answer to be provided. Given the answer that was finally given, his silence does not come as a surprise but it does raise the suspicion that he was covering-up for Vincent Tan, who has a record of interfering with the courts.

TO BE READ WITH

Misnaming of decision in favour of Tan Sri Dato Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun by judge Saufee Affandi who was closely linked to Eusoffe Chin and Tan's disbarred lawyer VK Lingam adds to the urgent need for a long overdue review and expungement of Tan related decisions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As recently reported on this blog:
Conduct and circumstances surrounding former Sessions and Industrial Crt judge Saufee Affandi suggest his judgements were written for him as were disgraced Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin's by disbarred lawyer VK Lingam - Investigation into Affandi's judgements and lawyers and parties he favoured warranted

Given the above and the prior reports of Affandi's misnaming a decision in favour of Vincent Tan there is now an even more urgent requirement for a long overdue review, and expungement, of Tan related decisions

Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Vincent Tan case misnamed so it would seem as if he had won another multimillion defamation matter - Industrial Court says it does not know how or why the misnaming occurred, but can Sahathevan v Sun Media remain precedent in any court

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As previously reported:

After approximately SIX years of correspondence and after prolonged periods of silence and much ding-donging the Industrial Court of Malaysia has at least admitted that the case name in Sun Media v Ganesh Sahathevan, in which Ganesh Sahathevan was in fact the plaintiff, is incorrect. As any first year law student would know, the correct order is Plaintiff v. Defendant, in this case, Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.

However, the Industrial Court has then gone on to say that it does not know how the error occurred, and will not therefore correct its records. The partial admission, after a fashion, adds to the evidence that the Industrial Court also was subject to the legal manipulation of disgraced former lawyer VK Lingam,and his primary cli Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, at least in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.
The Industrial Court's admission begs the question : how can Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd v. Ganesh Sahathevan' [2006] 2 ILR, 1057 be precedent for anything?

If it cannot be precedent, how can it remain on the books?
This is clearly a matter that needs clarifcation by the Chief Justice, Federal Court Malaysia.

TO BE READ WITH
Monday, April 17, 2023

Industrial Court admits error in VK Lingam , Vincent Tan decision, but will not correct error - MACC investigation into Human Resources Minister Sivakumar and officers should be expanded to include current and historical misconduct at the Industrial Crt

by Ganesh Sahathevan

After approximately SIX years of correspondence and after prolonged periods of silence and much ding-donging the Industrial Court of Malaysia has at least admitted that the case name in Sun Media v Ganesh Sahathevan, in which Ganesh Sahathevan was in fact the plaintiff, is incorrect. As any first year law student would know, the correct order is Plaintiff v. Defendant, in this case, Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.

However, the Industrial Court has then gone on to say that it does not know how the error occurred, and will not therefore correct its records. The partial admission, after a fashion, adds to the evidence that the Industrial Court also was subject to the legal manipulation of disgraced former lawyer VK Lingam,and his primary client, Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, at least in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.

Interference in the workings of the Industrial Court is very likely to have been driven down from the Ministerial level (Tan and Lingam only dealt with their equals) and hence an investigation into the Industrial Court's misconduct can serve as a platform for investigation into the current Minister V.Sivakumar , and his predecessors. It was the case until at least 2018 that the Minister for Human Resources determined ,which cases were heard by the Industrial Court. It would be naive to assume that the Minister and his officers do not still exert influence over the Industrial Court.

TO BE READ WITH

UESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2007

Saufee Affandi of The Industrial Court and the law he created for Vincent Tan and VK Lingam

The Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd was sold by shareholders who included Berjaya's Vincent Tan Chee Yioun and his lawyer V.K. Lingam to Nexnews Bhd sometime in 2003. One of the conditions imposed on that sale by the Securities Commission Malaysia was that the vendors indemnify Nexnews for any amount of damages awarded by any court against Sun Media Corp in relation to all legal proceedings commenced prior to the completion of the acquisition of Sun Media Corp by Nexnews.

One of those proceedings was the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd.
I have referred to this matter and how its management by the Industrial Court, in light of the VK Lingam video, raises questions about the corruption of that court and a former Director-General of the Manpower Department, Zainol Abidin Abdul Rashid.
http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/10/will-zainol-abidin-abdul-rashid-step.html

In Award 893 of 2006 , delivered on 22 May 2006, IC chairman Haji Saufee Afandi bin Mohmad found that the sacking of the claimant , Ganesh Sahathevan , a journalist , by his employer, Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd, publisher of THE SUN daily, was just and for proper cause.

The company had sacked the claimant in January 1997 , for writing a
story that the company had published concerning the business dealings
of Datuk Mokzhani Mahathir and a former stock broker from Singapore,
Peter Lim Eng Hock.

The story written was based almost entirely on statements made by
Mokzhani Mahathir.

Peter Lim issued a cease and desist to the Claimant and company in
regards to the story, but not Mohzani Mahathir.

The company immediately sought to apologise to Mr Lim and retract the
story, before it had obtained from Ganesh Sahathevan a written report
regarding his sources and justification for the story.

Subsequently, the company had claimed that Ganesh did not exercise
proper care in writing the story, claiming that the story was false.
The company alleged that legal action had been commenced against it
by Mr Lim as a result of publication of the story, even though no
legal action had been commenced. Ganesh maintained that the story was
accurate, and alleged victimisation on the basis that Berjaya Group
Bhd, then a shareholder of Sun Media Group, was also a party to the
business dealing revealed in the story.Company searches were provided
as evidence of Berjaya's involvement.

In finding for the company , Haji Saufee Afandi held:

"The Claimant has made issue with the Company's offer to apologize to Peter Lim.I agree with the Company that the offer to apologize is irrelevant to whether or not the dismissal of the Claimant is for just cause or excuse. If the Claimant had indeed written the Peter Lim article negligently ie without proper basis then he has committed a misconduct. That is so whether the Company offered to apologize or not. In fact even if the Company decides to fight the claims and wins based on evidence or fair comment that it obtains subsequently or through other parties still the Claimant is guilty of misconduct if he wrote the article without proper basis. "

The company had relied on a number of defamation cases in its submission.
Thus, the Industrial Court in this case considered the matter as one of defamation.

In the words of the learned Chairman:
Although these are defamation cases, they are relevant to guide the Court on the type of justification a journalist must have when he writes an article, especially one that contained allegations which may affect the reputation of the person mentioned .

The decision opens to the door for plaintiffs in defamation matters another avenue when seeking suppression of stories they are not happy about.
Parties who feel aggrieved by any matter published need not now seek the more legally rigorous and expensive route of an action in defamation, and related interlocutory injunctions. They can now attempt to ensure that the publisher of the article is pressured enough,with the mere threat of an action in defamation, to act against its own journalist,who would be denied the defence of fair comment.

In one fell swoop Saufee Affandi destroyed the centuries old defence of fair comment, quite an amazing feat for a chairman of an Industrial Court, who was formerly a judge in the Sessions Court. Like the case of Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai, this too appears to be a case where the court was prepared to create, re-write the law to suit the plaintiff for reasons best known to the judge concerned.

POSTED BY GANESH SAHATHEVAN AT 4:01 PM

- April 17, 2023

- November 26, 2023

Sunday, March 3, 2024

JC Roz Mawar Rozain orders plaintiff in negligence claim against Vincent Tan's Berjaya Land to be grateful to Berjaya and its employees,dismisses suit,orders costs be paid before any appeal - - Annapuranee Jenkins decision one more reason to purge the record of Vincent Tan linked decisions, Annapurnee decision smells like the conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The Hon. Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain

The Vibe reported on 29 February 2024:

THE SON of Australian grandmother Annapuranee Jenkins, whose partial remains were found scattered n Penang some four years ago, has vowed to continue seeking justice for her after yet another setback in the Malaysian courts over a case that has moved into its eighth year.

Steven Greg Jenkins said that he will consult his Malaysian lawyers with a mind to appeal the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court, which ruled on technicalities that a negligence suit filed by him against a developer and site project manager was unjustifiable.

Jenkins filed the suit last year, through his counsel Sankara Nair, where the plaintiff named the federal government, the police, Berjaya Land, its project manager Terrence Theseira and landscape worker Kew Kee Seng as defendants.

On February 26, Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain ruled on technical grounds that Jenkins did not have a legal right to file the lawsuit without obtaining permission from his late mother's estate first.

Roz elaborated that Jenkins, despite being the deceased’s biological son, was unable to show that he was its duly appointed legal representative.

Theseira was alleged to have instructed Kew to rebury the remains but later he also told Kew to lodge a police report after the remains were believed to have been tampered with.

Roz also ruled that those facts were insufficient to establish a cause of action in negligence against Berjaya Land and Theseira while Kew was not deemed to be an employee of the construction giant.

She said the Jenkins should be grateful to Theseira for convincing Kew to report the discovery of the remains to the police.

She ordered Jenkins to pay them RM20,000 in costs to the defendants and set aside March 8 for case management concerning the other respondents.

JC Roz Mawar Rozain decision that Jenkins needs the permission of his mother's estate to sue in negligence sounds rather strange, and her order that he pay costs before appealing a bit too much like doing the work of the defendants' lawyers.

Her comment that Jenkins should be grateful to Theseira for convincing Kew to report the discovery of the remains to the police gives rise to an apprehension of bias.

Her decision smells like the conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas where judge Saufee Affandi handed down a decision clearly designed to protect Sun Media Group and its parent Vincent Tan's Berjaya Group. The Annapuranee Jenkins decision is one more reason to purge the record of Vincent Tan linked decisions.

TO BE READ WITH

Monday, December 20, 2021

Conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas may have involved a perversion of the course of justice -investigation pursuant to S.182 of the Penal Code of Auldass' superiors at Sun Media Group, including its directors required

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Readers will be aware that Sun reporter S.Arulldas was convicted for contempt of court by publication despite he not having any power to publish. That power rested solely in his editors, and Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd, and its directors ((see story below).

It does appear that the reporter's duty to provide the court and prosecutors information that was true had been interfered with. That interference (which could include acts and omissions by the persons concerned) would be a perversion of the course of justice under Malaysian law, pursuant to Section 182 of the Penal Code.

The law in Malaysia has been summarised by Malaysian lawyer Saleh Buang in his column in the NST:

In Malaysia, the matter is dealt with under Section 182 of the Penal Code. It states that whoever gives to “any public servant” (a term which includes a police officer) any information, orally or in writing, which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause such public servant to use his power to “the injury or annoyance” of any person, shall be punished (upon conviction) by a prison term not exceeding six months or to a fine of up to RM2,000 or both.

It is likely that those who interfered in Aruldass' communications with the court and any other public officer in the course of the contempt proceedings brought against him were in breach of Section 182 of the Penal Code.

The matter of Aruldas demands attention for the additional reason that it is among the Vincent Tan cases that ought to be purged from Malaysian case law. Tan controlled Sun Media at all relevant times, as he does now via his Berjaya Group.

TO BE READ WITH

Saturday, January 23, 2021

Judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas: Arulldas had initially pleaded not guilty, and an investigation into whether Saufee and Arulldas's superiors at Sun Media played any part in changing his plea is required as a matter of urgency

by Ganesh Sahathevan

In the matter of Judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas, readers ought to be aware that Arulldas initially pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The issue was reported by the NST on 27 March 1998:

A reporter with the Sun daily pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court in Butterworth today to a charge of defying a court order stopping the media from publishing the alleged victim's identity in a case involving a Sessions Court Judge.

S. Arulldass, 42, claimed trial to the charge of contravening the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 1992) before Judge Tarmizi Abdul Rahman.

Later, he was brought before Judge Saufee, who was specifically dispatched from Kuala Lumpur to Penang to hear the matter, and he changed his plea to guilty. However, as explained below, there was no basis for Saufee to accept the plea and enter a conviction.

That he changed his plea while his superiors were not even charged must surely be cause for concern, and is a matter that requires immediate investigation. He does appear to be a victim of a judge playing prosecutor ,and it does seem as if he is entitled to compensation.

TO BE READ WITH

Conviction by Judge Sauufee Affandi of SUN reporter S. Arulldas may well be a case of judge playing prosecutor, in addition to other wrong doing -Arulldas conviction may require erasure, with compensation paid

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The conviction by Judge Sauufee Affandi of SUN reporter S. Arulldas may well be a case of judge playing prosecutor, in addition to other wrong doing.

As reported previously on this blog, the Judge Affandi managed to find a reporter guilty of contempt by publication of a story in The Sun, despite the reporter not having any authority to publish, and despite the fact that he did not think it necessary to make any finding against the publisher, Sun Media Sdn Bhd, the managing editor Rejal Arbee, and the Editor-In-Chief, Andy Ng (see story below).

As reported, Judge Saufee does have a record of working outside the bounds of his authority; making findings of defamation as an Industrial Court chairman is one example. In the case of Arulldas the judge seems to have taken the liberty to fill in the blanks in the prosecution's case. In that sense he has acted as if he were the prosecution. In addition he failed to inquire about the obvious gaps in the evidence he would have had to rely on to convict Arulldas.

Arulldass may well be entitled to compensation, and Judge Saufee's decision in the matter may well be one that needs erasure.

TO BE READ WITH

-Arulldas conviction needs erasure, with compensation paid

Much is rotten in the 1998 Sessions Crt conviction by Judge Sauufee Affandi of SUN reporter S. Arulldas: Malaysia's judiciary cannot possibly stand by decision to convict reporter for contempt when the offending story was published by SUN Media and its editors , who were not even charged

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported yesterday, in 1998 then Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi was specifically assigned to a contempt matter involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media, but managed to place blame solely on the Sun reporter S.Arulldas while excusing Sun Media, the publisher, and its editors, Rejal Arbee and Andy Ng.

How that esteemed jurist managed a finding of guilt given the facts is a matter that requires investigation for the reporter concerned, S.Arulldas could not possibly have published the article on his own. In fact, he could never have published, ever.

As anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how newspapers are published would comprehend, reporters can at best write their stories, but it is the editors who decide if the stories are actually published, their form, and content. A lesser known fact is that even after the editors make their decision, the sub-editors often make their own changes , ostensibly under the supervision of the editors. At The SUN, it was the sub-editors, not the reporters, who decided the headline.

One need not be an esteemed jurist to understand that one can only be held accountable for what one does. Additionally an esteemed jurist such as Saufee would have understood that the doing must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that there must be a clear unbroken chain of facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt between the intention to do wrong and the criminal act.

How then Suafee might have convicted Arulldass must concern anyone in charge of the Malaysian justice system. As it stands this judgement sits on the books, and cannot be said to foster confidence in Malaysian common law.

That Arulldass first claimed trial and then pleaded guilty before Saufee only adds to the stench surrounding this decision. To quote Mr Justice NH Tan in the Ayer Molek decision:

Something is rotten in the State Of Denmark.

It is for the Chief Justice Of Malaysia to have the matter investigated, and all concerned charged as required.

TO BE READ WITH

In 1998 Sessions Crt judge Saufee Affandi was specifically assigned to a contempt matter involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media, and managed to place blame on the Sun reporter while excusing Sun Media and its editor Rejal Arbee; Saufee's conduct in '98 adds context to his legal innovation in favour of Sun Media, Singapore billionaire Peter Lim, Vincent Tan ,their business partners , and others in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media

by Ganesh Sahathevan

YBhg Datuk Ahmad Rejal Arbee

As reported earlier on this blog, former Industrial Court Chairman Saufee Affandi managed to turn an Industrial Court claim by this writer against Vincent Tan's Sun Media into a defamation matter where he undertook to prosecute the case for Singapore billionaire Peter Lim and his business partners, despite not having any authority to do so, and despite Lim himself never commencing a claim against Sun Media or this writer.

It has also been reported here how Saufee mismanaged and in essence attempted to discredit evidence against Bursa companies Gamuda Bhd, Litrak Bhd and the EPF which had financed their privatised LITRAK toll road project, which had been discovered by this writer.

It can now be revealed that Saufee had a prior, and perhaps more questionable involvement with Sun Media in 1998 when he served as a Sessions Court judge. The matter was reported by The SUN (which is published by Sun Media):

A Sun reporter was fined RM 2,500 today when he admitted defying a court order which prohibited the publication of certain information in the case of a sessions judge who allegedly performed oral sex on a man. Sessions judge Saufee Affendi, who had come from Kuala Lumpur to specially hear the case.

A conviction under this sub-section carries a maximum fine of RM 5,000 or jail up to three years or both. Arulldas, who paid the fine, was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee and editor Andy Ng.

Why Vincent Tan's Sun Media and its editors Ahmad Rejal Arbee and Andy Ng who actually published the story were not also charged is mystifying.

Even more mystifying is the fact that Saufee accepted that the crime of contempt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt against a reporter who had absolutely no power to publish. The contempt, described above involved the publication of facts which were subject to a court order against publication.

TO BE READ WITH

Court fines Sun reporter RM2,500.

By Cynthia Blemin

335 words

17 June 1998

The Sun

English

(c) The Christchurch Press, INL 1998

Butterworth, Tues: A Sun reporter was fined RM 2,500 today when he admitted defying a court order which prohibited the publication of certain information in the case of a sessions judge who allegedly performed oral sex on a man . Sessions judge Saufee Affendi, who had come from Kuala Lumpur to specially hear the case, delivered his ruling after a 90-minute mitigation plea by defence counsel R. Rajasingam.

He said the court had taken into account the facts of the case, the counsel's mitigation and the prosecution argument. Saufee said accused S. Arulldas' admission of guilt was the main mitigating factor which carries weight when passing sentence . He stressed the need for the media to maintain close rapport with the court. He warned Arulldas against repeating such a mistake and fined him.

Arulldas had earlier claimed trial and the hearing was fixed for three days from today. He admitted commiting the offence through an article published in the paper on March 25, after the facts of the case were read out to him. Arulldas, 42, was charged with contravening Section 101(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 92), which had been invoked by the prosecution in the case involving Butterworth sessions court judge Rungit Singh.

Rungit had been charged with gross indecency and using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man whose identity has been withheld by the court. The sub-section reads that "a court may, at any time, order that no person shall publish the name, address or photograph of any witness ... or any evidence or any other thing likely to lead to the identification of the witness."

Document thesum0020010928du6h003qw

SUN REPORTER FINED RM2,500 FOR DEFYING COURT ORDER.

372 words

16 June 1998

BERNAMA Malaysian National News Agency

English

BUTTERWORTH, June 16 (Bernama) - A journalist with the 'Sun' newspaper was today fined RM2,500 for defying a court order when reporting on a case involving a judge.

S.Arulldas, 42, who had pleaded not guilty when charged in the Sessions Court here on April 30, changed his plea today and apologised to the court.

He was charged with defying an order issued by the court on March 24 prohibiting the reporting of any evidence or details that might reveal the identity of the alleged victim in the case against judge Rungit Singh.

Rungit is facing three charges of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man, and two alternative charges of committing acts of gross indecency by performing oral sex on the man.

In sentencing Arulldas, judge Sauffee Affendi said counsel R. Rajasingam's hour-long mitigation was the longest he had heard in his legal career and the points put forward had been noted.

According to Rajasingam, the court order was stale as the authorities had not issued a similar gag-order before Rungit was charged and earlier reports in 'The Star' and 'New Straits Times' newspapers had already identified the alleged victim.

He also questioned why the prosecution did not apply to the court to amend the alleged victim's name in the charge sheet to "Mr X" or "Mr Y" in view of the fact that the sheet would become a public document after that and anyone could obtain it.

Rajasingam said the court should only issue such orders to avoid interference in the administration of justice and not to avoid anyone from embarrassment.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin submitted to the court that the March 24 order was not applicable to media reports before the Rungit case came to court.

Arulldas was charged under Section 101 (2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which provides for a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years in jail, or both, upon conviction.

Arulldas, who was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee, paid his fine.

National

Reporter pleads not guilty to defying court order

299 words

27 March 1998

The New Straits Times

Main/Lifestyle; 2*

English

PENANG, Thurs. - A reporter with the Sun daily pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court in Butterworth today to a charge of defying a court order stopping the media from publishing the alleged victim's identity in a case involving a Sessions Court Judge.

S. Arulldass, 42, claimed trial to the charge of contravening the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 1992) before Judge Tarmizi Abdul Rahman.

On Tuesday, Sungai Petani Sessions Court Judge Ghazali Cha had made the order when another Sessions Court Judge Rungit Singh a/l Jaswant Singh was charged with using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a person.

In the case, Ghazali had invoked section 101 (2) of the Act, to stop the media, both print and electronic, from publishing the alleged victim's name, address, photograph or any information leading to the identification of the alleged victim.

Arulldass was represented by Jagdeep Singh Deo while DPP Yaacob Md Sam prosecuted.

Jagdeep is also one of six lawyers defending Rungit, who is facing three counts of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of the person and two alternative charges of committing an act of gross indecency with a person by performing oral sex.

The five other lawyers are Karpal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Christopher Fernando, Ranjit Singh Dhillon and Teja Singh Panesar.

Arulldass, who was accompanied by his wife, Theresa, Sun editor Andy Ng, its regional (northern) editor Ng Kee Seng and several colleagues, was alleged to have used words which could identify the victim in the case.

Arulldass, if found guilty, could face a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years' imprisonment or both.

Tarmizi fixed the case to be mentioned on April 30 and allowed bail at RM5,000.

Caption: Arulldass ... charged.

Industrial Crt chairman Saufee Affandi decided that Singapore billionaire Peter Lim had been defamed-Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to hear defamation matters, and Saufee did not rely on any decision of any competent court that Lim had been defamed

No comments:

Sunday, November 26, 2023

Misnaming of decision in favour of Tan Sri Dato Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun by judge Saufee Affandi who was closely linked to Eusoffe Chin and Tan's disbarred lawyer VK Lingam adds to the urgent need for a long overdue review and expungement of Tan related decisions

Thursday, November 16, 2023

Conduct and circumstances surrounding former Sessions and Industrial Crt judge Saufee Affandi suggest his judgements were written for him as were disgraced Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin's by disbarred lawyer VK Lingam - Investigation into Affandi's judgements and lawyers and parties he favoured warranted

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Chin's legacy of corruption lives on in the judgements he and his acolytes handed down

The personal conduct while on the Bench and the circumstances surrounding former Sessions and Industrial Court judge Saufee Affandi suggest his judgements were written for him (see below). These are issues that Affandi seems to have shared in common with the former disgraced Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin who he served as special ooficer before being elevated to the Bench.

Readers will recall that Chin's judgements were written by disbarred lawyer VK Lingam An investigation into Affandi's judgements and lawyers and parties he favoured is warranted for the judgements are precedents that may be followed by other courts.

TO BE READ WITH

Thursday, January 7, 2021

In 1998 Sessions Crt judge Saufee Affandi was specifically assigned to a contempt matter involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media, and managed to place blame on the Sun reporter while excusing Sun Media and its editor Rejal Arbee; Saufee's conduct in '98 adds context to his legal innovation in favour of Sun Media, Singapore billionaire Peter Lim, Vincent Tan ,their business partners , and others in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media

by Ganesh Sahathevan