FEBRUARY 13 — In “Will AG seek leave of Federal Court to appeal against Court of Appeal’s decision?”, I raised the question: will the Attorney General (AG) seek leave of the Federal Court under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision allowing Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s appeal against the dismissal of his bid to compel the Malaysian government to produce a purported addendum order from the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong that would see him serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest.
The three judges who sat on the Bench of the Court of Appeal were split in their decision, with Datuk Azhahari Kamal Ramli and Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Jaffril ruling in favour of Najib while Datuk Azizah Nawawi, who chaired the panel, dissented.
In allowing Najib’s appeal, Judge of Court of Appeal Mohd Firuz said that an applicant in a judicial review only needs to show that he or she has a good arguable case premised on the fact that his interest or rights have been aggrieved and one that is not frivolous and vexatious.
Court of Appeal Judge Azizah Nawawi, who chaired the panel of Court of Appeal judges, dissented, and agreed with the learned High Court judge.
Justice Azizah was reported to have said that the learned High Court judge was correct in his ruling that a mandamus order could not be granted against the Pardons Board since there are no provision in written law or the Federal Constitution that could compel the Pardons Board to confirm or disclose any existence of a pardon order, including the addendum order.
I thought that the AG should seek leave to appeal because as the guardian of public interest, the AG should urge the Federal Court to grant leave to appeal to decide on a question, if not questions, of law – that is, whether a mandamus order could be granted against the Pardons Board when there are no provision in the written law to compel the Board to confirm or disclose the existence of the purported addendum order.
The AG has since filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. In a statement, the AG’s Chambers (AGC) confirmed that the application was submitted on February 4, citing the need for legal clarity on the matter.
I thought the application was proper and necessary. Nothing should be held against the AG for the application.
So, the matter is now before the apex court.
Yesterday however, it was reported that Najib would be applying to ask the High Court to cite former AG Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh for contempt.
Najib’s lead defence lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said the action for contempt of court would be filed against Terrirudin by today or tomorrow at the latest.
“I have got instructions from Datuk Seri Najib to file an action for contempt of court against the former attorney general, who is now Tan Sri Terrirudin, who now sits in the Federal Court,” he said during a press conference at the Putrajaya court complex.
Shafee said one of the reasons why his client wanted Terrirudin to be cited for contempt is because the AGC had disputed in court about the existence of the purported addendum order for Najib to be placed under house arrest.
With the greatest of respect, one of the issues before the Federal Court in the application for leave to appeal should be whether a mandamus order should lie against the government to confirm or disclose the existence of the purported addendum order.
So, why the “would-be” application to cite Terrirudin for contempt?
Who is, or will be, in contempt of court? Tan Sri Terrirudin or Datuk Seri Najib?
*This is the personal opinion of the writers or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
