Ex-AG goes to court to nullify special task force report

Tommy Thomas has filed a legal action to strike down the special task force report over his memoir ‘My Story: Justice in the Wilderness’.

The former attorney-general filed the originating summons at the Kuala Lumpur High Court earlier today.

The report was made available to the public through the Prime Minister’s Department Legal Affairs Division on Oct 21, following caretaker prime minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob announcing its declassification after a decision made by the cabinet on Sept 30.

Among the key recommendations by the report was for the separation of the office of AG and public prosecutor over “selective prosecution”. However, the report gave no example of “selective prosecution” on Thomas’ part, who held office from June 4, 2018, to Feb 28, 2020.

The legal action listed Thomas as the sole plaintiff, with nine listed defendants; namely task force chairperson J C Fong, its members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh Bant Singh, Shaharudin Ali, K Balaguru, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip, as well as the government of Malaysia.

According to a copy of the affidavit in support made available to the media this afternoon, the plaintiff claimed that the special task force formed in October last year was an illegal body.

Thomas alleged that this is because the special task force’s chairperson and its members were not appointed under any written law.

The plaintiff contended that the task force is unlike a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI), whereby the latter is provided for under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1950 by appointment of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, to enquire into the conduct of federal officers such as an AG.

Thomas pointed out that unlike the present task force, an RCI is an open and transparent enquiry process where a person subjected to the enquiry is entitled to be present and represented by a lawyer.

The former government top lawyer asserted that any resulting action done by them, including the preparation of the report containing the various allegations, as being unsupported by any written law and therefore illegal and void.

The plaintiff contended that among these claims are “allegations against the judiciary, revealing government information and secrets, unlawful actions, abuse of power, professional negligence, and seditious statements”.

Thomas claimed that after the task force presented the report to Ismail Sabri, the caretaker premier had ordered enforcement agencies to carry out further probe against the plaintiff for “possible wrongdoings”.

“I had pointed out these matters to the Special Task Force when I wrote to them on Jan 5, 2022. 

“I stated that their establishment and existence was without any legal basis, and would set a dangerous precedent putting at risk the independence of the office of the attorney-general, to the prejudice of incumbent and future attorneys-general of Malaysia.

“My participation and cooperation would legitimise them, and I would therefore not do so,” the former AG contended.

Political ‘bullets’

Thomas claimed that despite this, the report was published by the defendants, with urging by Ismail Sabri for it to be used as “political bullets”.

During a BN political rally at Bagan Datuk on Oct 17, Ismail Sabri admitted that he declassified the report so it can be used as political “bullets” to attack Pakatan Harapan.

Thomas alleged that the report was published with intent to harm his reputation with false and baseless allegations and in order to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass him.

The plaintiff seeks several reliefs, among them declarations that the task force is an unlawful body with no authority in law and that the report is an illegal document unauthorized by law and in violation of Sections 499 and 500 of the Penal code and/or Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

Thomas seeks a declaration that the publication of the report violated his right for protection of his reputation per Article 5(1) and/or Article 13(1) of the Federal Consittution.

He is seeking for the nine defendants to pay compensation for violation of his constitutional rights, as well as for the first eight defendants (excluding government) to pay aggravated and exemplary damages without recourse to public funds.

Thomas also seeks for the first eight defendants to bear costs without recourse to public funds.

The plaintiff is represented by counsel from his own law firm, Messrs Tommy Thomas. - Mkini