Lessons from 1988: Reunion of the Advocates (Team 5 Judges)
As a lawyer who has been in practice for a decade, I have often heard about the 1988 Malaysian judicial crisis in hushed tones – a cautionary tale of what happens when the executive arm overreaches into the judiciary. But last Thursday, at the event "1988: Reunion of the Advocates", the stories of that dark chapter came alive in a way no textbook or courtroom anecdote could ever replicate. Sitting among fellow peers from the legal profession, I listened to the very advocates who had defended the five Supreme Court judges – Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh, and Datuk George Seah – as they recounted their strategies and personal sacrifices, and how the drama unfolded.
For the first time, I wasn’t just reading about history; I was hearing it from the men who had lived it. It has been a tremendous fund of vicarious experience and as they spoke, I found myself reflecting not just on the past, but on the state of our judiciary today – and what it means to be a lawyer in a system where the rule of law is sometimes tested by political winds.
⚖️ Justice, Not Fees
One of the most intriguing parts of the discussion was how the defence team was assembled. The advocates described how, in a profession often marked by rivalry, lawyers from different firms and backgrounds came together for a singular cause: to defend the judiciary itself.
The team included seasoned litigators as well as young, idealistic lawyers who recognised the gravity of the moment. Aside from the usual tasks of carrying bags and keeping the curry puffs warm, I was impressed with the level of maturity of the junior lawyers at that time when they asked themselves “what is the point of practicing if this could happen”. Unlike high-profile commercial cases, this was not about fees; it was about justice. Many took on the case knowing there would be no monetary reward—only consequences awaiting them.
Hearing this, I couldn’t help but wonder: Would today’s legal profession respond the same way? In an age where specialization and commercialization dominate, would young lawyers today be willing to take on such a case, knowing the personal and professional costs?
👣 The First Move: Recuse the Judge
The advocates then recounted their first task and hurdle – getting Supreme Court Judge Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani removed from the tribunal. Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani had previously made statements critical of the panel of the five Supreme Court Judges, calling it a “revolution” when he was asked by Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh (who had wanted a panel of seven Supreme Court Judges) to sit in and which he refused, making his impartiality questionable.
As a litigator, I was struck by the sheer audacity of challenging a Supreme Court judge’s neutrality in that political climate. Of course, the advocates qualified by stating that some allegations against Tan Sri Hashim Yeop Sani remained unverified. Coming back to the present day, it made me question: How much has really changed? While we now have clearer recusal guidelines, do judges today truly rule without fear or favour? Or does the shadow of 1988 still linger?
The advocates were then asked about their feelings when they had to cross-examine judges as well as court registrars. One advocate remarked that they did not approach it any differently than they would have with other witnesses – regardless of their personalities or positions (whether a judge or sitting registrar), they were after all, witnesses of fact to narrate what had transpired.
That was indeed a timely reminder to all of us aspiring advocates to act without fear or favour. As lawyers, we have a duty to act based on objective facts and applicable laws, without being influenced by fear of repercussions or external pressure.
🔎 The Personal Cost
Perhaps the most sobering part of the evening was hearing about the personal sacrifices these advocates have made. One audience asked “What was the personal costs to all of you in taking on the brief to defend the five judges?”
One advocate recounted how, after the case, their firms and practice suffered – they were either blacklisted or removed from the panel of government-linked companies and rumour also has it that their personal income tax returns were looked at, and this went on for years. Another advocate spoke of his switch to alternative dispute resolution practice from courtroom practice after having cross-examined a registrar who later went on to become a judge.
I found myself asking: Would I have had the courage to do what they did? It’s easy to admire their stand in hindsight, but in the moment, it must have been something unfathomable.
The 1988 crisis didn’t just end with the dismissal of the two judges, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah – it reshaped Malaysia’s judiciary for decades. The advocates spoke of how, in the years that followed, the Malaysian Bar became more vocal in defending judicial independence.
Lessons from Team 5️⃣ Judges’ Interview
Listening to these advocates, I realised that their fight wasn’t just about 1988 – it was about every generation of lawyers that followed. Here’s what I took away from the event:
Being a lawyer isn’t just about winning cases or earning fees. At its core, it’s about upholding justice, even when the system is against you.
The advocates of 1988 could have stayed silent. They didn’t. Their courage set a standard that we, as today’s lawyers, must live up to.
The 1988 crisis happened because people assumed it couldn’t. We must remain vigilant, because judicial independence is never guaranteed – it must be defended.
The solidarity of the Bar in 1988 was its strength. Today, with the profession more fragmented, we must find ways to unite when justice is at stake.
As I adjourned the event for drinks, one question lingered: If a similar crisis happened now, would today’s lawyers respond with the same conviction?
I’d like to think so. But the truth is, we will not know until we are tested.
What I do know is this: The advocates of 1988 didn’t just defend the five judges — they defended the very idea of an independent judiciary. And as lawyers, we owe it to them – and to ourselves – to ensure that their fight was not in vain.
*This article was contributed by Zack Lim of the Endeavour Advocacy Project, who attended the second panel of the “1988: Reunion of the Advocates” event. This piece not only brought out what the room felt — but why it mattered.