Is Shafee trying to rewrite pardon law, asks ex-deputy minister

 

Former deputy law minister Hanipa Maidin has criticised senior lawyer Shafee Abdullah over his remarks on the High Court’s rejection of Najib Abdul Razak’s house arrest bid.

This came after the counsel to the former premier claimed that the verdict had reduced the powers of Malay rulers.

Taking Shafee to task, Hanipa (above, right) asked if the lawyer was trying to rewrite Article 42 of the Federal Constitution on the rulers’ and governors’ pardon powers.

“Shafee seems to have conveniently ignored or completely disregarded the crucial word in Article 42, namely, the word ‘advice’. Instead, he used the word ‘discuss’.

“He ought to be fair. The constitutional language enshrined in Article 42 is crystal clear. Such prerogative powers must be exercised on the advice of a Pardons Board,” Hanipa said in a statement today.

On Dec 22, High Court judge Alice Loke ruled that the previous Agong Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah’s supplementary decree was invalid because it did not follow constitutional procedures as per Article 42, requiring that clemency decisions be made in consultation with the Pardons Board.

Ex-PM Najib Abdul Razak

Loke said that whilst the power of clemency is a royal prerogative, the Federal Constitution has provided for it to be exercised within the framework of the Constitution.

In other words, she said, the king can’t make a pardon decision independent of the board.

Following the decision, Shafee urged the Agong and other Malay rulers to review the decision, claiming it would have a major impact on their powers.

Disappointed in Shafee

Hanipa said while Shafee may be disappointed with the verdict, others may have also been disappointed by his remarks.

“Perhaps, he failed to realise that many people - including members in the legal fraternity - are equally disappointed with him too,” he added.

Yesterday, DAP veteran Teng Chang Khim also rebuked Shafee for his remarks and called for him to be cited for contempt of court.

“His remarks that the decision had reduced the powers of the Agong and the Malay rulers were absolutely political, and it was unethical and unbecoming of a member of the Malaysian Bar to make such a remark outside the courtroom,” Teng added.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers also stepped in and described the remarks as untrue, adding they did not reflect the reasons given by the court. - Mkini