The Federal Court today ordered parties to proceed with arguments after deciding that it has jurisdiction to hear a review application by ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim against the court's own decision to uphold his conviction for corrupt practices.

A three-member panel headed by Court of Appeal president Abdul Malek Ahmad unanimously rejected a preliminary objection by the prosecution, which contended that the court has no power to review an appeal when it has disposed of the case.

"We hold that we have the jurisdiction to consider all motions filed by the applicant (Anwar) as we find that Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules (which allows the court to hear any application in order to prevent injustices) has a legislative effect," said Abdul Malek.

The question of jurisdiction was raised yesterday by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail who argued that the court has no power of review, as Rule 137 is unconstitutional.

The court now has to consider if there is special and extenuating circumstances to allow it to review the earlier decision.

Anwar's lawyer Sankara Nair told malaysiakini later that if the court agrees the case warrants a review, it can quash the conviction and sentence or order the appeal to be re-heard before another panel.

"If it doesn't agree that the matter has valid special circumstances, then it can reject the application," he said.

The review is a rarity in Malaysia's legal system and is Anwar's final opportunity to clear his name and be eligible to participate in politics. He was found guilty of corrupt practices in 1999 and had completed the prison term on April 14.

However, he was freed of a sodomy conviction last Thursday and is now in Germany for treatment of a slipped disc.

Technical arguments

Today, Anwar's counsel Karpal Singh submitted arguments that were of technical in nature relating to the written judgments delivered by the court in upholding Anwar's conviction for corrupt practices.

He argued that the motion should be allowed as Section 94(2) of the Courts of Judicature Act - the provision under which the judgments were issued - is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

He said the provision which requires all judges to seek the permission of the chief justice to deliver a judgment has infringed on the independence of judges.

Karpal also said the provision cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny as all judges must be allowed to decide without fear or favour and be free from repression, even by the chief justice.

"In the event that the court rules that the provision is valid, we submit that the judges in their earlier judgment failed to comply with the provision," he said.

This is because section 94(2) of the Act also specifies that there must be only one judgment from the panel of judges.

"(Instead), the judges deciding the case had delivered two separate judgments - one discussing the conviction and another discussing the sentence. Both judgments are invalid because they each failed to address both issues," he said.

"It's two incomplete judgments. Two halves (of an incomplete judgments) do not make one proper judgment."

Team confused

Meanwhile, there was confusion among Anwar's legal team as to whether to proceed with a motion involving fresh evidence to support the review application.

Karpal told the court that Anwar had instructed the team to drop the argument. However, lead counsel Christopher Fernando ( right ) insisted that he had been instructed to submit on the matter.

Sankara then informed the court that the instruction to drop the issue was made via a phone conversation with the politician yesterday afternoon and that he had not been able to inform Fernando in time, as the latter had arrived late this morning.

As Fernando stood up to argue further, Justice Abdul Malek ordered the lawyers to discuss the matter privately and inform the court when the hearing resumed in the afternoon.

However, the court did not convene in the afternoon after being told that Karpal was held up in Parliament.

The hearing continues tomorrow.