Attorney-General Idrus Harun needs to explain his reasons for settling the suit of former attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali regarding the termination of the latter’s contract.
Permatang Pasir assemblyperson Faiz Fadzil said this explanation was important because Apandi’s (above) case could be a judicial precedent for other cases involving constitutional appointments, including political appointments.
“What are the principles and methods that should be taken into account in terminating a constitutional post like the attorney-general?
“This is important as a guide for any government after this to act so that no violations or wrongdoings occur.
“Therefore, whether the termination of the attorney-general’s contract was in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Constitution, especially Article 145, needs to be clarified by the attorney-general,” the Amanah man said in a media statement.
Earlier, Malaysiakini reported that Apandi's suit against the government regarding the termination of his service as attorney-general had been resolved amicably.
His lawyer Baljit Singh Sidhu confirmed that Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Akhtar Tahir recorded the settlement during case management.
“Without prejudice, the government has agreed to settle this suit without admitting liability. Terms of settlement remain confidential.
“The case was dismissed without the liberty to re-file it and without an order for costs,” the lawyer said.
‘It’s taxpayers’ money’
For the record, on October 13, 2020, Apandi filed a suit naming Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the government, respectively as the first and second defendants, seeking among other things a declaration of termination of his contract as AG made during the Pakatan Harapan administration in 2018 was invalid.
In his statement of claim, Apandi, who was a Federal Court judge before being appointed attorney-general in 2015, also sought a declaration that the first defendant had abused his position and that the first defendant had incited a breach of contract between him and the Malaysian government.
He also sought a declaration that there was a failure to comply with Article 145 of the Federal Constitution in his dismissal and that his dismissal as AG was unlawful, and therefore invalid.
Apandi sought special damages of RM2,233,599.36, general damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
However, in a statement of defence filed in November 2020, Mahathir and the government insisted that the termination of the contract was valid and in accordance with the provisions of the federal constitution.
Faiz stressed that the attorney-general also needed to clarify the terms of the settlement because if it involved the payment of compensation and the people’s money.
He said although the settlement was made without acknowledgement of liability, the attorney-general was responsible to the public as taxpayers to disclose the compensation involved and what method was used as the basis for calculating compensation.
“The attorney-general’s explanation on this issue is important on the principles of accountability and fairness as this case involves the public interest.
“When Apandi sued the Malaysian government in his capacity as a former attorney-general, then this case was a case of public interest and not a private case. After all, it has become a common perception that the settlement of this case is seen as a government acknowledgement that the termination of the previous attorney-general’s contract was not valid.
“Justice must be seen to be implemented and therefore, the explanation by the attorney-general is important so that justice and the rule of law are upheld,” said Faiz, who is also a lawyer. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.