A federal minister today warned that if the Malaysian Bar succeeds in its judicial review against the attorney-general's decision to clear Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak of wrongdoing, it may open the floodgates for other cases.

"The Malaysian Bar asking for judicial review on attorney-general's exercise of his clearly discretionary powers could open up a Pandora's box.

"If judicial review of attorney-general's decision is allowed, then it is conceivable that those being accused by the attorney-general will also ask for it," Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan said in a series of Twitter postings today.

Bar Council president Steven Thiru yesterday revealed that the Malaysian Bar had fielded the judicial review on grounds that the attorney-general's discretionary powers are not absolute or unfettered.

This is over attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali's decision to clear Najib who received deposits of RM42 million from state-owned SRC International and RM2.6 billion from an offshore account in his personal bank accounts.

The Malaysian Bar is also seeking for Apandi to be disqualified from making further decisions relating to the case, requesting it be delegated to the solicitor general, as Apandi had reportedly advised Najib on the cases.

Najib had claimed the money was a political donation and denied using public funds for personal gain.

Abdul Rahman defended Apandi's decision, stressing that there was nothing illegal about the money received by Najib.

"The 1MDB donations and transactions were approved by Bank Negara Malaysia. There was no way for the transactions to proceed without Bank Negara's approvals.

"Bank Negara's approvals also meant the money was legitimate. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) then has very little reason to press for corruption.

"Political donation is legal and Umno gives its president vast discretionary powers to raise and keep the money.

"MACC itself has concluded the donation came from Saudi Arabia," he said in a statement today.

Insisting that Apandi's decision was consistent with the law, Abdul Rahman Dahlan urged the Malaysian Bar to clearly state where the attorney-general had erred.

'Malaysian Bar can pursue case'

Meanwhile, Gerakan deputy youth chief Andy Yong said there was nothing in the law that prevented the Malaysian Bar from pursuing the case.

"Nothing whatsoever is expressly stated in Article 145 (of the Federal Constitution) that the attorney-general's discretion is not subject to judicial scrutiny or review.

"Perhaps the court should shed some light on this issue once and for all in order to improve public perspective of the administration of justice in our country," he said.

Yong cited a case in 2000 between Samy Vellu and S Nadarajah where the court held that Article 145(3) did not confer a monopoly of power on the attorney-general.

Furthermore, he said in a 2001 case in Singapore, the Court of Appeal ruled in Ramalingam Ravintran v the attorney-general, that the attorney-general's discretionary powers are not immune to judicial review, if they are shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or in breach of a person's constitutional right.