Shafee fails to recuse disciplinary board chair
Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah today failed to remove the presiding panel member in the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (ASDB), which is hearing a case against him following a complaint filed by jailed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Shafee was seeking to recuse Vijay Kumar Natarajan, a senior lawyer, who is the chairperson of the disciplinary proceeding with two other members.
Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah today failed to remove the presiding panel member in the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (ASDB), which is hearing a case against him following a complaint filed by jailed former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Shafee was seeking to recuse Vijay Kumar Natarajan, a senior lawyer, who is the chairperson of the disciplinary proceeding with two other members.
According to Anwar's lawyer, Sivarasa Rasiah ( photo ), Shafee put in an application to the board yesterday citing possible bias as Vijay Kumar had acted against Shafee in a civil suit.
“However, Vijay Kumar dismissed the application filed by Harvinderjit Singh who appeared for Shafee assuring there would be no bias,” said Sivarasa, who is also the Subang MP.
Shafee also applied to file additional submissions to the case and the board adjourned the hearing to July 22 and 22 with Anwar expected to testify.
The other two panel members are lawyer Izzat Othman and layperson, Ng Kay Yip.
Anwar scheduled to testify today
Earlier Sivarasa confirmed that the de facto PKR leader was scheduled to testify today, but a preliminary objection made by Shafee against one of the panel members on the ASDB had to be heard first.
“That issue has to be resolved before Anwar can testify at the proceeding, where we are likely to object to Shafee's preliminary objection,” Sivarasa told Malaysiakini .
He said the complaint against Shafee was for acting in conflict of interest and breach of rules of etiquette in accepting appointment from attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail to be deputy public prosecutor and conduct the Sodomy II trial for the prosecution in Court of Appeal and in the Federal Court.
“The complaint was filed by Anwar last year,” Sivarasa said.
Shafee is also acting for several Umno and BN-linked politicians in suits filed by Anwar and among them are Youth and Sports Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin, Foreign Minister Anifah Aman and Malaysian United Indian Party president senator S Nallakaruppan.
The ASDB proceeding, like the one against another senior lawyer Cecil Abraham and his son Sunil Abraham, will be conducted behind closed doors, before a three-member panel of the board.
Shafee, 63, who is also chairperson of the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, came to the limelight yet again after senior lawyer Tommy Thomas and a former Court of Appeal judge, VC George,
tabled a motion
against him for his conduct during roadshows after the Sodomy II verdict.
This motion was scheduled to be heard before the last annual general meeting of the Malaysian Bar, but Shafee filed a suit against Tommy, George and the Malaysian Bar and obtained an injunction one day before the AGM, preventing the motion from being tabled and discussed.
The case is now before the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, with Justice Asmabi Mohamad to decide on June 23 whether to grant the applications from the Bar Council and from Tommy and George to strike out Shafee's suit or to grant an inter-parte injunction against the parties named by the Umno-linked lawyer.
Shaffee fined RM5,000 before
Shafee is no stranger to controversy, for he has been fined RM5,000 by the ASDB for promoting himself in two articles published by the English daily The Star .
The articles in the Sunday Star issue of Sept 27, 2009, were titled 'Counsel rests his case' and 'Keeping within the letter of the law' .
Shafee tried to have the fine set aside in an appeal to the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, but judge Zaleha Yusof dismissed his review application for the fine.
Justice Zaleha agreed with the Bar Council, which initiated the disciplinary action, that the article did contain laudatory remarks and statements about the applicant and his firm, which was beyond the scope or approved information allowed by the Legal Profession (Publication) 2001.
The matter is still subject to a final appeal before the Court of Appeal.


Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.