The government filed an objection with the Kuala Lumpur High Court today over former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad's application for a judicial review.

Mahathir is seeking to challenge the appointment of two members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Bank Negara's foreign exchange (forex) losses in the 1990s.

The two members are Petronas chairperson Mohd Sidek Hassan and chairperson of the Special Taskforce to Facilitate Business (Pemudah) Saw Choo Boon.

Sidek led a task force established earlier this year to probe the forex losses, of which Saw was a member.

The government's legal team, led by senior federal counsel Amarjeet Singh and Suzana Atan, said the RCI did not have jurisdiction or powers to terminate appointments.

Therefore, they said Mahathir could not file an application for judicial review to seek an order of certiorari.

An order of certiorari is a formal order to the lower court to deliver its record of the case for review.

“The decision of the RCI in dismissing the application to disqualify Sidek and Saw was correct on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction or powers to terminate an appointment.

“The grounds for directing the Malaysian government or cabinet to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to terminate the appointments do not come within the ambit of laws allowing for an order of mandamus (to compel),” said the lawyers.

They made the application under Section 44 of the Special Relief Act 1950.

Mahathir's application, which was filed last Wednesday, came up today for leave to seek judicial review for his case to be heard on its merits before Justice Azizah Nawawi in her chambers.

Today was supposed to be an ex-parte application for leave but the government led by the Attorney General's Chambers objected to the application.

Dr M: Duo's presence seen as fulfilling Najib's bad intention

Mahathir's lawyers, led by Haniff Khatri Abdulla, argued that the former premier could apply for leave for judicial review as it is within the rules of natural justice.

He said the application should be made to prevent RCI members from being “tainted with bias”.

Haniff added that he, along with lawyers Rafique Rashid Ali and Fahmi Moin, had also asked the court to grant a stay of proceedings on the RCI until the judicial review is disposed of.

Justice Azizah fixed Thursday (Aug 17) to deliver her decision on whether to grant leave for Mahathir to seek judicial review or allow the government’s objection.

The former premier had named the six members of the RCI and the government in the judicial review application.

Mahathir, in his affidavit in support of the application, said the formation of the RCI was to tarnish his reputation as a premier and that of his then deputy Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang, after the three of them had decided to go against Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

The former premier said that since 2015, he had called for an RCI on the losses incurred by 1MDB but the government decided to form a task force on the forex losses instead and this was based on what former Bank Negara assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalid had said last January.

“Najib wants to divert the attention of the people from the problems faced by his government and is out to tarnish my reputation,” he said.

The former premier cited an article which appeared in Sinar Harian online citing Mahathir's U-turn when the RCI was announced last month to show that Najib's true intention was to have Anwar and Lim turn against him and that any finding made could lead to a criminal prosecution.

“This shows Najib's real intention which deviates from the RCI's term of reference. That is why the composition of the RCI members has become more relevant, to restore the trust of the people in its independence and neutrality,” he said.

“The presence of Sidek and Saw, who were initially two members of the task force, could be seen as fulfilling Najib's bad intention against me,” he added.

According to Mahathir, this is made much worse by Sidek's statement in June that there is a prima facie case.

He further claimed that Sidek and Saw's presence in the RCI violated the principles of natural justice due to the duplicity of their positions in the task force.