The Federal Court will deliver its ruling on Nov 21 on Anwar Ibrahim’s application to bar senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah from representing the prosecution in the Sodomy II appeal.

NONE During the proceedings today, Anwar's lawyer Karpal Singh objected to Shafee's presence in court to submit on behalf of the prosecution as he will be the subject of the ruling.

However, Court of Appeal president Justice Md Raus Sharif, sitting with Justices Abdull Hamid Embong, Ahmad Maarop, Hasan Lah and Abu Samah Nordin, allowed Shafee to be present and to submit.

Karpal said the Court of Appeal’s decision was wrong as Shafee's appointment should have been made solely under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code and not also under Section 376(3).

Any appointment under Section 376(3) was in violation of the amended Section 378 which states that no lawyer can be appointed in any criminal appeals, he said.

azlan Attorney-General (AG) Abdul Gani Patail (left ) had appointed Shafee on July 11 this year to represent the prosecution in the appeal.

Karpal emphasised that Shafee should not be pulled in to head the prosecution team as his “mere presence would create a negative perception” of the case.

This is because Shafee was in then deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak's house when Sodomy II complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan was there.

“He was a potential witness in the case, and now he is acting for the prosecution. That in itself denotes a perception, regardless of whether or not he met the complainant. He was at the house,” Karpal said.

‘Limited role’

Shafee however argued that he had not been called in by either the prosecution and defence during the trial proper, and that this shows his role was limited.

“In fact, I felt offended when I was not interviewed by the defence,” he joked.

NONE The defence team had tried to interview Najib, his wife Rosmah Mansor and former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan among others, as potential defence witnesses.

However, applications to call Najib and Rosmah were set aside during the trial.

Shafee said his appointment under Section 376(3) of the CPC and also Section 379 was proper as suggested by the Court of Appeal, as it is a way to bypass Section 378.

“Under Article 145 of the federal constitution, the AG can appoint anyone to represent the prosecution as DPPs or senior public prosecutors in the case,” he noted.