Forgery by (Advocates) Inquiry Committee

 

From: luqman michel [mailto:luqmanm2002@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 July, 2021 10:48 AM
To: admin@sabahlawsociety.org

Dear Exco members,

 

I complained to the Inquiry Committee about a legal firm in Kota Kinabalu in 2004. The case came up for mention only 15 years later, in 2019. After the case was heard it took another 21 months for the findings to be released.

 

A few questions that I would like you to investigate are:

1.       Why was my complaint shelved for 15 years and brought for mention only after 15 years?

2.       Why does it take 21 months for the findings to be released?

 

Attached below is the email received from the Secretary of the Inquiry Committee together with the findings.

 

I believe forgery has been committed by the secretary of the Inquiry Committee for the following reasons:

1.       Only 6 members attended the hearing and yet 8 members have signed the findings.

 

2.       Out of the 6 members who attended, 3 said that the Inquiry Committee takes the view that the Complaint has no merits and is a frivolous complaint that ought to be dismissed.

 

3.       The remaining 3 members stated at paragraph:

        3. It is therefore our considered views that: -

(b) On the conflict of interest issue, the Respondent has breached rules 3, 4, 5(a), 16 and 28(a) of the Advocates (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1988 for the reasons given at paragraphs D6 to 29 above and that an application can be commenced in the High Court for rule to issue to the Respondent to show cause pursuant to the rules made under section 17 (a) of the Advocates Ordinance (Sabah Cap 2)

 

(c) The Complaint in respect of the Conflict of Interest issue herein is bona fide and there is prima facie evidence that disciplinary proceedings be taken against the Respondent under section 17 (a) of the Advocates Ordinance (Sabah Cap 2) and an application should be made to the High Court under section 13 of the said Ordinance.

 

4.       How did a tie of 3 vs 3 become a majority of members who said that the complaint has no merit? 

 

The minutes of the hearing shows that 6 members attended the hearing. Yet 8 members signed the findings. 

 

I urge you to investigate how the two members who were not at the meeting signed the findings.

 

This act of forgery by the secretary of the Inquiry Committee is unbecoming of an advocate who is also the president of the Sabah Law Society.

 

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this email.

 

I intend to make a police report on this matter once the MCO is over.

 

Thank you and kind regards,

Luqman Michel