KUALA LUMPUR – Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s legal team has slammed the view that court proceedings for the former prime minister’s judicial review application for a purported house arrest should not have been held in chambers yesterday.
Lawyer Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee said claims alluding to yesterday’s proceedings being held “in secret” are “completely misplaced”, pointing to relevant laws on court procedure.
“To put the issue into context, yesterday’s proceedings were scheduled for leave to commence a judicial review (and) not the substantive hearing itself,” Farhan said in a statement.
“Pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Court Act 2012, an application for leave must be made ex parte (conducting proceedings without the presence of targeted respondents) to a judge in chambers.
“The word ‘must’ suggests that this process is mandatory to be an in-chambers hearing with the public not invited to sit in and this also includes the applicant himself (Najib), who was not present,” he added.
He said since chambers matters have often been conducted in open court since the Covid-19 pandemic to facilitate social distancing, the request by Najib’s legal team for the public to be removed from the courtroom is “100% in line with present court rules.”
“While I noted that the reasons cited by counsel was due to issues of potential sensitivity, which is a separate ground altogether, it does not change the fact that the law requires this stage of proceedings to be held privately in-chambers to begin with.”
The lawyer took aim at reform movement Bersih and other non-governmental organisations for effectively calling for a rewriting or reinterpretation of the Rules of Court Act for Najib’s case.
“This, ironically, goes against their overarching demands for equal treatment.
“I strongly advise any critics to check the relevant law before disparaging parties, including the court, in this manner.”
Earlier today, Bersih said that since Najib’s judicial review application involves public interest and funds, court proceedings on the case should be conducted openly and transparently.
“If not, it will create a double standard perception, which can erode public confidence in the government and our nation’s justice systems,” it added.
This came after Najib’s counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah requested before judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh for the leave application to be heard in-chambers due to the sensitive nature of an affidavit submitted by a critical witness supporting Najib’s bid for the government to confirm the existence of a royal supplementary order allowing him to be under house arrest.
In allowing the request, the judge had ordered everyone in the public gallery, including journalists, to leave the courtroom.
When approached by the media later, Shafee insisted that the affidavit was not publicly accessible and cautioned against reporting on its alleged content as the court had ordered for the document to be sealed.
However, a source then told Scoop that there was no court order yet against the publication of the affidavit as Shafee had merely made an oral application before the court earlier today.
In the affidavit, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who was named as a critical witness, confirmed the existence of the addendum order dated January 29, 2024, issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, which was shown to him (Zahid) by International Trade and Investment Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz.
Najib, 70, filed the judicial review application on April 1, alleging that there is an addendum order issued by the 16th Yang di-Pertuan Agong dated January 29 allowing Najib to serve his remaining jail term under house arrest.
The date of the supposed addendum order is the same day the Federal Territories Pardons Board met and decided to halve Najib’s prison sentence from 12 to six years, and reduce his RM210-million fine to RM50 million.
Najib is seeking to have the government and six other respondents confirm the addendum order exists – and if so, to execute the order, provide original copies of it and discuss any necessary reliefs the court deems fit.
Tengku Zafrul has since said he will be filing his own affidavit in response to Zahid’s document to correct “factual errors” while the Attorney-General’s Chambers has assured it will raise the matter in court. – April 18, 2024