Explosive emails provided to the writer by a member of the public have exposed a conspiracy between a royal charity in the United Kingdom, the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) and their Malaysian lawyers Zul Rafique & Partners to orchestrate a malicious campaign of character assassination against the writer and a respected academic, Dr Geoffrey Williams.
The CMI is a UK-based royal charity under the patronage of HRH Princess Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh who is the sister-in-law of King Charles III.
The royal charity has become embroiled in multiple legal cases in Malaysia following an investigation last year by the Malaysian Higher Education Ministry (MOHE) that they are selling unaccredited certificates through 21 Malaysian universities.
Following the probe, CMI were advised by MOHE to secure accreditation from the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) but have so far failed to show proof of any form of formal MQA recognition.
CMI also face evidence of perjury and witness tampering which has been declared by the High Court in Malaysia as relevant to a RM17 million (US$4 million) defamation case against the CMI brought by Dr Williams.
In March this year Zul Rafique lawyer, Syafinaz Vani Abdullah was forced to take over the case after another partner of Zul Rafique Idza Hajar recused herself following complaints of malpractice, which she claims were instructed by the CMI.
Zul Rafique lawyer, Syafinaz Vani Abdullah (left), took over as CMI lawyer following the recusal of Idza Hajar (middle) due to complaints of malpractice, which appear to be continuing in a conspiracy with CMI Charity Secretary Elaine McClean (right) and others.
The new evidence in emails written by the CMI Charity Secretary Elaine McClean in May 2025, suggests that that Zul Rafique may be continuing in potential malpractice through a conspiracy with CMI. These emails went out to hundreds of people.
In her emails McClean threatens that Zul Rafique would force the addressee (hidden for his/her protection) to testify in court against Dr Williams and the writer in claims that they had “defamed CMI at the CMI Malaysia AGM at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Kuala Lumpur in October 2023.” The addressee was instructed that CMI lawyer Zul Rafique intended to issue a formal summons requiring the addressee to attend if they failed to cooperate.
The emails also disclose that CMI has set up a special committee including Zul Rafique to collaborate in a concerted character assignation campaign among CMI members falsely claiming that the writer and Dr Geoffrey Williams are conspiring to damage CMI’s reputation.
This claim, based on a “belief” among the CMI and their legal team, has not been supported by any evidence almost twelve months since CMI commenced litigation on this issue at the High Court in Shah Alam against Dr Williams and the writer.
However, the emails from Elaine McClean demand evidence from the addressee which is unrelated to the pleadings made in the CMI legal suit. These include claims that the writer was involved in defaming the CMI at the October 2023 event, which the writer did not attend.
This is malicious defamation against the writer, who had no connection with CMI until the issue of their unaccredited certificates being sold in Malaysia was exposed six months later in 2024. To date, CMI has never publicly disputed the facts in a series of articles published by the writer, despite an offer to allow them to respond to the revelations.
The only purpose of the CMI emails appears to have been to destroy reputations. The CMI letter appears to have been sent to hundreds of people as a deliberate campaign of reputation destruction and to force people to testify under duress on matters so long ago, it would be difficult for them to recollect.
Such actions by CMI and Zul Rafique amount to conspiracy and an abuse of the legal system to destroy the reputations of others for profit. This is certainly conduct unbecoming of CMI who present themselves as a professional body in management and leadership standards.
Zul Rafique as a licensed law practice in Malaysia also appears to be encouraging their client to break the law and abuse the court system. In doing so Zul Rafique has crossed a professional line and has become a party to the cases against CMI and could be held responsible for criminal actions of their client.
Subscribe Below:
Lets pray that none of those emails contain any element of truth so that the writers may be able to avail themselves of the defence of truth in such matters. In respect of forcing Zul Rafique and partners to disclose the identity of the writers of those emails in question. Dr. Williams may have a huge problem on his hands with respect to his rights against a Royal Charter Institution because of the protective layers given to such institutions with patrons who are members of the British Crown.
The protection offered by a Charter or a Royal patron is not absolute immunity, but it can sometimes provide significant influence and potentially create a perception of untouchability that may make holding these organizations to account challenging for legal systems. (Think Prince Andrew and all those organizations in which he was patron (including many linked to the late Jeffrey Epstein and his crooked friends)).
Sadly there isn't a publicly maintained database or collection of "escaped sanction" cases specifically for Royal Charter organizations. Such cases would likely be obscured within broader legal reporting or would require deep analysis of specific organizations' histories. Such is the nature of British justice especially where their hallowed Royals, the Crown and their criminality is concerned.
Take the case of the Queen of England, by her private secretary who denied having received Sir John Kerr's advise to her that he was about to sack the government of Edward Gough Whitlam. Something that legal and constitutional experts have near unanimously agreed was an impossibility based on documetary and other corroborative evidence. Yet the Queen had the privilege of being right inpite of a lie.
Blackstone the author of the celebrated commentaries agrees that, "Parliament has sovereign and uncontrollable authority in the making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving and expounding of laws concerning matters of all possible denominations ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime or criminal. This being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all Governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the Constitution of those Kingdoms. It can regulate the succession to the crown, as was done in the reign of Henry VIII and William III.
It can alter the established religion of the land, as was done in a variety of instances in the reigns of Henry VIII and his three children. True it is that "what the Parliament doth no authority upon earth can do." There are more instances of what can and cannot be done to an English Institution or its Royal patrons as Dr. William a Briton ought to himself be aware of. There are numerous other examples but no need to go into these for the moment.
What is perhaps a mere threat to sue for defamation can be said to be just that. I would not lose much sleep over that although the institution concerned may. Taking such matters to court creates an opportunity to one's adversary to launder dirty linen in public from which the offending Charter Institution and its Royal patron may never recover reputationally.