Former attorney-general (AG) Tommy Thomas contended that the lawsuit against him by former Felda chairperson Shahrir Samad is unsustainable under the law.
He also claimed the legal action was driven by Shahrir’s personal vendetta after the latter was investigated, arrested, and charged over alleged money laundering of RM1 million purportedly received from former prime minister Najib Abdul Razak.
In an affidavit in support of an application to nullify Shahrir’s (above) civil action, Thomas alleged that Malaysia does not recognise claims for malicious prosecution premised on the ex-AG’s exercise of his power under Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution to commence criminal proceedings.
He pointed out that the present writ of summons does not fall within the exception to the rule - laid down in the landmark 2021 Federal Court case of N Sundra Rajoo vs Home Minister and Others - as it was not filed as a judicial review.
In the 2021 apex court case, Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat ruled that legal challenges against the AG’s exercise of constitutional power to institute criminal charges can only be challenged in rare and exceptional circumstances.
Thomas noted that when the Kuala Lumpur High Court discharged and acquitted Shahrir of the RM1 million money laundering case on Jan 5 last year, it was not done at the end of a full trial with a finding of innocence.
The former AG contended that the full acquittal was granted when prosecutors sought a discharge not amounting to an acquittal but the defence team countered with a bid for a full acquittal.
Shahrir was first charged in court in January 2020. Thomas stepped down as AG the following month.
“In the circumstances, the plaintiff’s claim against me for malicious prosecution is unsustainable in law,” Thomas said.
The defendant further contended that the court ought to strike out the lawsuit as he was never involved in any purported malicious investigation and arrest against Shahrir.
“As the AG/PP (public prosecutor), I was not involved in any way in the investigation and arrest of the plaintiff by the MACC. Further, I did not have the power to do so.
“The statement of claim (of Shahrir’s suit) is devoid of particulars as to how I was involved in the alleged ‘malicious investigation’ against him and his ‘malicious arrest’.
“Neither does the plaintiff’s statement of claim allege such involvement by me,” Thomas said, contending that the entire lawsuit discloses no reasonable cause of action and is frivolous as well as vexatious.
The former AG contended that Shahrir’s legal action was “in pursuit of a personal vendetta against the respective heads of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and MACC at the time he was charged”.
On Dec 4 last year, Shahrir filed the suit against Thomas, former MACC chief Latheefa Koya, MACC, and the government for alleged malicious prosecution.
The plaintiff is represented by law firm Fahri, Azzat & Co.
Thomas is represented by law firm Tommy Thomas. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.