The Bar Council plans to hold a watching brief in the re-hearing of widow Santamil Selvi’s appeal in her suit against businessman Deepak Jaikishan, over concerns with developments they described as 'unusual'.

This is after the re-hearing was set following a letter by senior lawyer Cecil Abraham ( below ) to the Court of Appeal president justice Md Raus Sharif on Oct 5.

Santamil, who is the widow of the late private investigator P Subramaniam, had filed a RM1.9 million suit against Abraham, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, his wife Rosmah Mansor, businessman Deepak Jaikishan and five others over their alleged role in driving her family into exile as her husband was a witness in the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case.

All the respondents succeeded in striking out her suit with the exception of Deepak, who did not enter an appearance and agreed for the suit against him to be heard in a consent order.

The sudden re-hearing of the case also coincided with Deepak seemingly changing his mind, having appointed a lawyer and asking for the consent order on Oct 2 to be set aside.

“It is unusual for a defendant (Abraham), who successfully strikes himself out as a party to a suit, to then write to court on a matter relating to the suit at an appeal (in the suit) that concerns a remaining party to the suit.

“By striking himself out, a defendant asserts that he ought not to have been made a party to the suit at all. It is strange that the defendant would then still want to be involved in the on-going suit against the remaining defendant,” Bar Council president Steven Thiru told Malaysiakini .

In the letter addressed to Raus and the three judges who presided over the case, Abraham cited his duty as an officer of the court (lawyer) and pointed out that the appeal was not done in a proper manner as a consent judgment cannot be recorded between Santamil and Deepak at the Court of Appeal.

Following this, the Court of Appeal held a case management on Oct 15 and fixed Oct 23 to re-hear the case before the same judges led by justice Vernon Ong, together with justice Abdul Rahman Sebli and Zamani A Rahim.

Date set before applying?

Thiru said the common recourse for a party aggrieved by a final decision of the Court of Appeal is the Federal Court.

“It appears from the ( Malaysiakini ) report that there was a case management on Oct 15 in the Court of Appeal for the appeal, although the appeal had already been heard and disposed off on Oct 2.

“Case managements in the Court of Appeal are for pending appeals, or sometimes for part-heard appeals, but not for appeals that have already been decided by the court,” he told Malaysiakini .

Thiru added that the granting of a hearing date for an "unborn application" was unusual.

"It also appears from the ( Malaysiakini ) report that at the above-mentioned case management, a date of hearing (Oct 23) was fixed for an application (to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal) that had not yet been filed in the Court of Appeal.

"The practice of the courts is to give a hearing date for an application that has been duly filed in court. The granting of a hearing date for an unborn application is not the norm.

"It has been reported that the application to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal was subsequently filed on Oct 20, and it is to be heard on Oct 23."

Santamil’s lawyer Americk Sidhu had described as “bizarre” that a re-hearing date had been fixed even before the respondent Deepak made any applications.

Thiru ( above ) noted the Bar Council did not have all the facts of the matter but said the abrupt re-hearing, which was reported by Malaysiakini , raised “a number of troubling issues and questions”.

He added that the Bar Council would seek further clarification from the judiciary on the matter if necessary.

Malaysiakini is awaiting comments from Abraham.