The Federal Court today reserved judgment in blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin’s application for a revision over the apex court’s two member panel’s decision on Tuesday to dismiss his earlier application to recuse Justice S Augustine Paul.

Court of Appeal President Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff along with Chief Judge of Malaya Ariffin Zakaria and Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Richard Malanjum did not fix a date to deliver their decision.

raja petra Today, counsel Malik Imtiaz Sarwar for Raja Petra ( left ) said that his client was submitting the application for a review under rule 137 of the Rules of the Federal Court.

Malik submitted that the two member panel comprising Justice Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin had erred in law in dismissing Raja Petra’s application as the two member panel contravened section 74 (1) of the Courts of Judicature Act (CJA).

Section 74(1) of the Act states that every proceeding in the Federal Court shall be heard and disposed of by three judges or such greater uneven number of judges.

‘Wrong for two-member panel seating’

Malik said that it was wrong for Nik Hashim to invoke section 78(1) of the CJA to allow for a two-member panel seating.

"As the two member seating on Tuesday can be considered unconstitutional, hence the decision rendered by the two can be considered as unlawful and illegal when it heard and decided on Paul's recusal application.

"Following this, my client is applying for a review over the Tuesday's decision," he said to a courtroom packed with the blogger's supporters.

However, Raja Petra was not present to hear the application.

On Tuesday, Paul ( right ) had recused himself from hearing Raja Petra’s augustine paul application resulting in a two-member panel headed by Nik Hashim.

Raja Petra applied to recuse Paul as a result of the blogger writing several critical articles on the judge while the latter was presiding the Anwar Ibrahim’s corruption trial.

Application dismissed

Paul had also heard Raja Petra’s habeas corpus application in 2001, when he was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) where the judge dismissed the application.

However, Nik Hashim and Zulkefli, despite an objection by Malik of a two-member seating, decided to dismiss Raja Petra’s application to recuse Paul.

Raja Petra had filed for an application of review on Friday following Tuesday’s decision and the blogger wants his present habeas corpus case to be heard before a new panel and not before the present panel comprising Nik Hashim, Zulkefli and Paul.

Raja Petra, in his application, also cited he was worried as the bias issue was not heard by the original panel.

The home minister is appealing against the Shah Alam High Court’s decision on Nov 7 to release Raja Petra from ISA. The blogger had been detained for 56 days following an order by the minister.

Prove panel unlawfully constituted

Tun Majid Tun Hamzah, representing the home minister in the appeal, submitted that it was incumbent upon the applicant to show that the two-man bench which heard the recusal application was unlawfully constituted under the CJA.

abdul razak baginda altantuya case 040607 tun majid tun hamzah Tun Majid was assisted by senior federal counsel Abdul Wahab Mohamad and Najib Zakaria.

Shah Alam High Court judge Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad, in ordering Raja Petra’s release, ruled that the home minister had not followed proper procedures under Section 8 of the ISA.

Syed Ahmad said there was procedural non-compliance and the minister had acted beyond his powers in issuing the detention order.

"A minister cannot issue an order out of bad faith," said the High Court judge.

He then ordered that Raja Petra, who had been held at the Kamunting detention camp in Taiping, Perak, for 56 days, to be released.

On another matter, a defamation suit filed by lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah against Raja Petra will be heard on May 25.