Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has asked the Court of Appeal to impose costs on Anwar Ibrahim and his defence team for “delaying” the government’s appeal against the Sodomy II verdict.

It is extremely rare that costs are imposed in criminal cases, but Shafee relied on case law to argue that this can be done.

Submitting today on Anwar’s third application to remove him from leading the prosecution team, he said these attempts are vexatious and an abuse of the judicial process, and meant to delay the appeal hearing.

“The fine imposed by the Advocates and Solicitors disciplinary board did not result in my being struck off the rolls,” Shafee said, referring to the RM5,000 penalty imposed on him in 2012.

“The judgment of the Kuala Lumpur High Court only said that the article is laudatory but the words are written by the author (not me).”

Shafee said the KL High Court had adjourned Anwar’s case 69 times, and that a member of the judiciary had even remarked that this should go into the Guinness Book of Records for the most postponements.

He said that Karpal and Anwar have scraped the bottom of the barrel to find fault with him.

“Hence, if I get through this, I would be the most fit and proper person to lead the prosecution.

“Furthermore, the decision by the KL High Court to uphold the fine is on appeal. The Bar did not stop me from practising as a result of the fine. In fact, it (renewed my) licence for this year.

“Unlike Karpal, who has been convicted of sedition, I have not been convicted of a criminal offence. It is like the pot calling the kettle black.”

Karpal had wanted Shafee to be removed from leading the prosecution on the grounds that he is not “a fit and proper person” to lead the prosecution after being fined by the disciplinary board.

Shafee had failed to get the fine set aside last month.

Karpal submitted he was duty bound to submit multiple applications to ensure that his client will get a fair trial and had hoped that despite the fine and the decision upheld by the High Court, Shafee would do the right thing and remove himself from leading the prosecution.

‘No one better?’

Karpal had submitted that a fit and proper person should not have such a record and that this brings into disrepute the taxpayers’ money used to pay Shafee's bill.

“Surely, there must be someone better who the attorney-general can find to lead the prosecution team. A person representing the prosecution, must be independent which. we submit. he is not,” he said.

Karpal further submitted that Shafee, who had chaired a Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) inquiry on the detention of five lawyers in Kuala Lumpur, had found then police officer Jude Blacious Pereira (right) not to be a credible witness.

Yet, Shafee has now come to court “trying to defend Pereira, and this puts him in a conflict of interest position in acting for the prosecution”.

On this point Shafee submitted that, while he did indeed chair the Suhakam panel, his observation on Pereira was limited to that inquiry.

“We all know some witnesses may be not credible in one trial but, in others, their testimony is accepted. Furthermore, what does the detention of lawyers have to do with this sodomy case,” he asked.