A lawyer representing Prime Minister and BN chairperson Najib Abdul Razak and BN secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor told the High Court in Kuala Lumpur today that it has no jurisdiction to hear the PKR suit on the RM2.6 billion.

Mohd Hafarizam Harun submitted what PKR was seeking consisted of criminal elements, which do not fall within the civil jurisdiction of this court.

Hafarizam said the allegations in the suit were made under provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Financial of Terrorism Act, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Act, the Financial Services Act and the Foreign Exchange Act.

He said the plaintiffs were also seeking a declaration that the BN is an unlawful society, within the meaning of Section 41 of the Registrar of Societies (ROS) Act.

"With due respect, this court does not have a jurisdiction to declare what is allegedly criminal in nature," he said.

Furthermore, Hafarizam ( photo ) said, the application to strike out the 13th general election can only be done through an election petition and not through the civil court.

"This is highlighted in the PAS vs Election Commission case on indelible ink, where the court dismissed the application to declare the election process null and void, for this must be done in accordance with Article 118 of the Federal Constitution, by way of an election petition," he said.

Article 118 states that "no election to the House of Representatives or to the Legislative Assembly of a State shall be called in question, except by an election petition presented to the High Court having jurisdiction where the election was held".

Hafarizam further argued that Nurul Izzah in her affidavit in support of the suit did not state that she was acting as a PKR office-bearer and this is seen as a violation of the ROS Act, as any action against a political party must mention the officer-bearer.

Lawyer Tan Hock Chuan for 1MDB submitted that the corporate entity was not a political party and therefore should not be brought into this action, that the suit was filed without basis and without purpose, and that 1MDB has been included for all the wrong reasons.

'Funds did not come from 1MDB'

Furthermore, Tan said, the MACC has made it clear that the alleged funds did not come from the 1MDB, as stated in the MACC press release in August, and that the funds are stipulated to have come from a Middle East donor and not sourced from 1MDB. 1MDB never transferred any money to Najib.

He said the action by the plaintiffs was based on reports published in newspapers and also on the online media, and that press reports could be hearsay, for there is no evidence before the court.

Tan said so far the action is based on a multitude of reports that could not be verified, “but we have a press statement issued by the MACC, which is the investigator”.

“Based on the statement, there is no basis for the plaintiffs to proceed against 1MDB and continue with the baseless allegation which is meant to fulfil an ulterior political motive,” he said.

“Even if the statement of claim is heard, the action is founded solely on newspaper reports which have no reasonable prospect of succeeding if it proceeds to trial,” Tan said, adding that while the plaintiffs pleaded conspiracy, the statement of claim failed to show how 1MDB is involved.

Tan ( photo ) argued that such a charge or allegation must be supported by particulars and there must be evidence as “we understand it under the law and not hearsay newspaper reports”.

Furthermore, the action is being investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, police, MACC and Bank Negara “whose outcome we do not know”.

Najib, along with Tengku Adnan, 1MDB and the Election Commission are seeking to strike out the suit.

The suit was filed by former opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, PKR vice-presidents Nurul Izzah Anwar and Tian Chua, former secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution Ismail and former PAS member Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

Wrong forum

Najib, Tengku Adnan, 1MDB and the EC are named as defendants in the suit, with the plaintiffs stating that public funds had been used in money-laundering, corruption and rigging of elections.

They want the 13th general election results to be declared null and void because of this.

Senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh, representing the EC, agreed the court is the wrong forum for the case to be heard as this matter should have been heard before an election judge and not a civil court.

“Article 118 (of the Federal Constitution) clearly stipulates this and we have a Supreme Court decision in the case of the EC vs Abdul Fatah Harun, where any matter or any dissatisfaction should be brought by an election petition and nowhere else.

“The whole case is politically targeted, where some of the plaintiffs may have lost but there are those who won in the 13th general election,” he said, adding that this is a frivolous and vexatious action against the EC.

Judicial commissioner Mohd Zaki Abdul Wahab will next hear submissions from Tommy Thomas, representing the plaintiffs.