The High Court in Kuala Lumpur denied lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla’s application to intervene in a suit against the Chief Justice over alleged judicial misconduct.
Judge Mohd Firuz Jaffril ruled during open-court proceedings this morning that the lawyer’s application has no merit.
In dismissing the application, the court ordered cost to be dealt with between the respondent, who is the chief justice and not named in the suit, and Proposed Intervener (PI) Haniff Khatri (photo, above)
According to a copy of the grounds of judgment, the court found that Haniff Khatri failed to prove how he would be affected by any ruling made in regard to the legal action, which was filed by lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo.
Haniff Khatri had sought to intervene in the suit concerning the chief justice's bid to expunge portions of Court of Appeal judge Hamid Sultan Abu Backer's (JHS) affidavit, which Sangeet Kaur is relying on for the suit.
“The Court agrees with the submission of the respondent (the chief justice who is not named) that the PI failed to demonstrate how his rights and interest would be directly affected by this court’s decision of Enclosure 12 (respondent’s application to expunge certain portion of JHS affidavit in support of the applicant’s (Sangeet Kaur's) application.
“The facts show that the statements made by the PI in his Facebook postings were not in his personal knowledge but based on what JHS told him.
“The PI also confirmed that he had informed the police of the same upon being interviewed in the course of the investigation.
“There is no change of as to who gave the information regardless of whether the PI’s application to intervene is allowed or dismissed,” Justice Firuz said in the judgment.
In regard to the contention of Haniff Khatri that his name was mentioned in the legal action’s cause papers and that he has a right as a lawyer to do so under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA), the judge said this was not good enough to allow the intervener application.
Currently, the Bar Council is already holding a watching brief on the matter, which is in line with the provisions of the LPA, Justice Firuz noted.
The court also dismissed Haniff Khatri’s bid to be amicus curiae, a Latin maxim meaning “friend of the court” whereby someone who is not a party in a legal action can help the court by feeding information, expertise or insight that may have a bearing on the case.
“Lastly, the PI’s request to be amicus curiae, while noble, has to be considered in the light that the PI is the solicitor to JHS.
“In this regard, the court cannot allude to such request as it would lead to conflict between the PI representing his client’s interest and being a friend of the court.
“This may lead to an issue of perception and put the PI and the court in an embarrassing position.
“Towards this end, this court finds no merit in the PI’s application,” Justice Firuz ruled.
During today’s proceedings, Sangeet Kaur represented herself in the suit, with the chief justice represented by senior federal counsel S Narkunavathy, Haniff Khatri by Mohd Irzan Iswatt Mohd Nor and Hamid Sultan by Joy Appukuttan (photo, below).
On July 26, Haniff Khatri filed to intervene in the legal action.
According to the application, Haniff Khatri said he had a right to intervene in the chief justice's application to expunge portions of Hamid Sultan’s affidavit in relation to Sangeet Kaur’s suit.
He said this is because Hamid Sultan’s claims of judicial interference in the late Karpal Singh's sedition trial is a key element in Sangeet's lawsuit.
Haniff added that he has an interest as a proponent for a royal commission of inquiry into the allegations of judicial misconduct.
Should his application be rejected, the lawyer offered to attend and speak as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) during the hearing of the chief justice's application to expunge the affidavit.
Sangeet is relying on Hamid Sultan's affidavit for her lawsuit. The 65-page affidavit, released on Feb 14, alleged widespread corruption and abuses in the judiciary.
On March 7, the Attorney-General's Chambers, which is representing the chief justice, filed an application to expunge the affidavit, saying that its contents are "contemptuous, scandalous and scurrilous attack on the judiciary." - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.