(delivering the judgment of the court): The Malaysian Bar took out a notice of motion to move the court for an order or direction that the Lord President of the Supreme Court do advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong pursuant to art 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution to appoint such person or persons who have held high judicial office in Malaysia and whom the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in his absolute discretion deems fit to be an additional judge or judges of the Supreme Court to hear the committal proceedings against the respondent. Alternatively the Malaysian Bar sought for an order that the committal proceedings be stayed pending an application to the Lord President under the same art 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution for the same purpose.

In the affidavit supporting the notice of motion, the secretary of the Bar Council of the Malaysian Bar gave a summary of the grounds for objecting to all Supreme Court judges from hearing the committal proceedings. The summary of the grounds are contained in para 3 of the affidavit as follows.

3 A brief summary of the grounds for objection in relation to the respective Supreme Court judges are given below:

3.1 The Honourable Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar — he is the defendant in this proceedings.

3.2 The Honourable Chief Justice of Malaya Tan Sri Datuk Hashim Yeop Abdullah Sani, Dato Harun Mahmud Hashim, Dato Mohamed Yusoff bin Mohamed and Datuk Gunn Chit Tuan — members of the panel of Supreme Court judges who sat at the Supreme Court hearing on the 21st and 22nd July 1988 [ Tun Dato Haji Mohamed Salleh bin Abas v Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Omar & Ors [1988] 3 MLJ 149 ] and who set aside the order of the Supreme Court dated 2 July 1988, the circumstances relating to which are connected to the committal proceedings herein.

3.3 The Honourable Mr Justice Tan Sri Datuk Lee Hun Hoe — one of the defendants in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, which resulted in the said order of the Supreme Court of 2 July 1988.

3.4 The Honourable Mr Justice Tan Sri Dato Haji Mohamed Azmi bin Dato Haji Kamaruddin and the Honourable Mr Justice Tan Sri Dato Seri Dr Eusoffe Abdoolcader — two of the Supreme Court judges who heard the application and granted the said order of 2 July 1988 in the proceedings which were sought to be prevented by the respondent.

3.5 The Honourable Mr Justice Dato Ajaib Singh — the judge in the proceeding which was the subject matter of the application to the Supreme Court resulting in the said order of 2 July 1988.

In para 4 of the same affidavit the secretary of the Bar Council also stated that it would be improper for the Lord President or the Supreme Court judge who is next most senior to him to appoint any High Court judges to hear the committal proceedings.

Firstly, on the question of disqualification. As regards the three of us here the only objection would seem to be that we sat on 21 and 22 July 1988 to consider the order of prohibition issued against the tribunal. The Supreme Court which sat on the two days mentioned was only concerned with the legality or propriety of the order of prohibition. We were only concerned with questions of law and not concerned with the circumstances which brought about the committal proceedings.

Secondly, it would seem clear from the affidavit on behalf of the Malaysian Bar that the applicant also considers that all the judges of the superior courts should be disqualified and that the only solution is to invoke art 122(1A) of the Federal Constitution for the appointment of additional judges of the Supreme Court by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Lord President. This is an interesting point but fraught with problems. Firstly, art 122(1A) speaks of 'advice' of the Lord President. Therefore the Lord President is required, if he wants the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint additional judges under art 122(1A), to nominate the additional judges. This obviously will not solve the problem posed by the