A recent decision of the High Court against Jude Blacious Pereira (Pereira) a former police office turned lawyer seeking admission to practice in its jurisdiction is to say the very least antithetical to good law and a troubling decision that cannot go undisturbed.

That decision in Pereira appears to be grounded on political rather than on legal or equitable principles. To add to the inequity of the court’s decision in Pereira is the egregious indirect interpleading in the matter by Suhakam, a political organization with a human rights ‘fig leaf’ for its cover.


Reading through Act 597 (Act) the Act of parliament which created Suhakam, one finds nothing within that Act to suggest that Suhakam is a source of legal authority with the power to make a ‘finding’, or a ‘decision’ (Finding) in the legal sense of the word against anyone. Further there is nothing in the Act by which any Findings by Suhakam, if that is what it is indeed, is binding on a higher tribunal as the High Court or  justifies the High Court receiving into evidence a Finding by Suhakam in the context of Pereira’s application.

For the purposes of Pereira’s application for admission at least (which was not before the court in any event), what occurred in Suhakam at a tribunal of inquiry level and the way in which their Finding came about could not be admissible as ‘evidence’ of his ‘character’. Suhakam’s Findings in this regard have no legal sanction or force of law for their conclusions to constitute a valid and adverse Finding against Pereira. If it did, it should have properly been referred to a court of law because of the inferences of perjury by Pereira and an allegation he misled the court in Sodomy II.

The ‘evidence’ of that Finding against Pereira by Suhakam that  Pereira is not a ‘fit and proper person’ to be admitted as an officer of the High Court  and as a legal practitioner is not evidence in any proper sense capable of impeaching Pereira’s character. Neither is that ‘evidence’ binding on any properly constituted court of law as the High Court for a number of reasons only some of which for convenience is addressed here.


The High Court erred in subordinating its powers and its authority to the Findings of an inferior tribunal without any legislative or inherent power enabling it to do so. Its findings were not made on any petition put forward by Periera to support his admission to practice. 

The High Court and the presiding judge likewise possess no authority or power to accept into evidence as they erroneously did, the ‘evidence’ or submissions of Suhakam’s ‘Findings against anyone including Pereira in this regard.

Interestingly it is observed that there was criticism of Pereira’s failure by the court to challenge or to seek to set aside the Findings of Suhakam against him. A point to be made here on that criticism is this; there is no  legal requirement on the part of Pereira to seek to set aside or challenge the Findings  of a body as Suhakam as a pre-condition of his application to being admitted to the High Court as a legal practitioner of that court.

Suhakam made no legal Findings capable of being admitted into evidence on Pereira’s character in any meaningful way other than by its visceral judgment.

The Findings of Suhakam against Pereira has no force of law. Suhakam is merely an advisory body set up to advice government on matters relating to the subject of international human rights and its potential for application to domestic legislation. It is not a court of law.


Apart from controversially receiving into evidence Suhakam’s Findings against Pereira, the High Court allowed into the proceeding damning indirect criticisms of the Court of Appeal and the High Court itself. It did so by accepting into evidence the further allegation that Pereira had ‘fabricated evidence and lied’ to the court in the Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II trial. That allegation against Pereira of ‘fabricating evidence’ and having ‘lied’ in the Sodomy II matter had no place in the High Court in Pereira’s application.

Having erroneously and controversially received into evidence this particular aspect of Suhakam’s Findings against Pereira the result simply is this:

  1. Suhakam opens itself to the charge of contempt of Court of Appeal and High Court
  2. Suhakam opens itself to a charge of bringing the High Court and Court of Appeal into disrepute
  3. Suhakam opens itself to allegations of abuse of process in the High Court by its conduct in the matter of Pereira, by using Pereira’s application as a secondary platform by which to advance a defence on behalf of Anwar Ibrahim on the charge of Sodomy II

Sodomy II has already been properly tried before a competent court in Malaysia. In that hearing Anwar Ibrahim was found guilty after considering all the relevant and admissible evidence laid properly before that court. Suhakam and the High Court in Pereira is certainly not the proper forum or mechanism in which to challenge the evidence of the Court of Appeal or court of first instance in Sodomy II.

Of the three points above, c ) is particularly relevant. This is because it raises issues in respect of the manner in which Suhakam seemingly in Anwar’s defence, seeks to advance in an unlawful and inappropriate way for a collateral and improper purpose, a rehearing of evidence in Sodomy II.


Nothing of substance about the character of Pereira of any value to support a challenge to his admission is raised in Suhakam’s submissions, its Findings.   In this respect the High Court in its jurisdiction ought not to have received into evidence Suhakam’s allegations (and that’s what they are, mere allegations) against Pereira for the reasons above.

Suhakam’s conduct points instead to a political lynching of a man in uniform who properly and impartially discharged his duties as an officer of the PDRM on the instructions of his superiors and in compliance with the law. The legal profession and those self-appointed guardians and unelected champions of the ‘Human Rights’ of Malaysians on the occasion of their arrest felt they were above the law in being detained and denied access to lawyers when in fact they had contravened a law and disobeyed a lawful direction given to them by the Police to disperse.

The conduct and political partiality of those lawyers whose complaints led to the Suhakam inquiry against Pereira is evident and characterized by their choice of forum by accessing Suhakam in preference to the more appropriate jurisdiction of the law courts to ventilate their complaints against the lawful conduct of Pereira.

Adrian Fairweather


  1. In the eyes of the discerning public, SUHAKAM lost ts credibility once it became politicised and anti-establishment.

    I wonder too, how many in THE BAR COUNCIL and its committee members are fit enough to remain as lawyers or as they like to put it, “Officers of the Law”.


    1. Dealing with the second part of your comment. Very few remain worthy and people of good character. But that is the Malaysian Bar Council for you.

      As for Suhakam I must give them and PKR credit for having now truly corrupted the public service getting them to cross that line. That goes for the executives of the public service from the PM’s office, the foreign office, some so called neutral NGO’s and the AG’s chambers.

      Amongst the judiciary there are those who are corrupted by their incompetence. Not because they are wantonly or willfully one sided. Incompetence is the highest form of corruption especially when aided and abetted by ignorance.

      Malaysia will go the way of Thailand, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, The Ukraine and other places where ‘well intentioned’ people wanting change are swept up like rice and confetti after a wedding by a well healed and well funded opposition using pretty mindless clichés to keep them occupied. It will continue till it becomes unbearable and intolerable. The army will then step in. Once that happens they will understand what it means to be without freedoms and not abuse it like they do now. It will be too late by then.

      It won’t be Ambiga or Anwar, It won’t be Kit Siang or Coolie. It will be a heavy handed military for decades. And it will be legally justified. And the Malays will be the biggest loosers.


  2. “…. And the Malays will be the biggest loosers.” Why a foreigner like you need to get worried for things happening in Malaysia, GRK?


    1. The same reason foreigners like you cross my borders and read my articles, come to wherever it is I am
      to seek support for your crusades against government from my side and use the technology to respond to
      me which you do not have a right to, not having any technology to call your own.


  3. How did he lie and what was his “lie?” and who proved he was lying? As for the Bar Council being “Stupid to allow him to practice law” I agree that the Bar Council is stupid. But it is not simply stupid for allowing him to practice law. They are stupid period!! Any peak professional body with someone of the likes of Ambiga Sreenivasan and Sivarasah, Amrick Singh Siddhu and the late Karpal Singh as members who would then seek to prevent Jude Periera from practising law are a living example why someone like Jude Pereira should not be held to a standard higher than what they themselves are capable of.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: