Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar poses two legal questions to the Federal Court which he says satisfy the threshold for leave under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Dusuki Mokhtar, in asking the Federal Court to reverse the ruling, posed two legal questions which he says satisfy the threshold for leave under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
Leave to appeal to the apex court is granted only when a case raises novel constitutional or legal questions of public importance that warrant its determination.
Dusuki affirmed an affidavit supporting the application, filed yesterday.
The first question is whether the attorney-general or public prosecutor’s decision to institute, discontinue, or withdraw a prosecution under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution is amenable to judicial review.
If so, the Federal Court is also asked to determine the legal test that must be satisfied before leave can be granted to commence judicial review proceedings.
The second question is whether the two-stage test laid down by the Federal Court in Sundra Rajoo Nadarajah v Menteri Luar Negeri, Malaysia & Ors [2021] constitutes a binding legal principle (ratio decidendi).
Dusuki has also applied for all proceedings in the High Court to be stayed pending the outcome of the leave application.
Zahid, who is also the second proposed respondent in the judicial review proceedings, filed a separate application for leave to appeal last week. He raised seven legal questions.
The Umno president and deputy prime minister is seeking to reinstate the High Court’s decision of June 27, 2024, which dismissed the Bar’s application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the granting of a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) in his Yayasan Akalbudi corruption case in 2023.
The Court of Appeal ruled on May 7 the Bar had met the threshold required for its challenge to proceed to a full hearing in the High Court.
Justice Faizah Jamaludin, who sat with Justices Lim Hock Leng and Nadzrin Wok Nordin, held that Justice Collin Lawrence Sequerah’s order granting Zahid the DNAA following an application by the prosecution was merely a procedural order made in the course of the criminal proceedings.
Zahid was granted a DNAA on all 47 charges pending further investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
In January, the Attorney-General’s Chambers classified the case as requiring no further action. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.