Aug 28 verdict on Najib’s bid to disqualify Sri Ram as DPP
Najib Abdul Razak will know on Aug 28 whether he succeeds in his legal bid to disqualify Gopal Sri Ram from prosecuting the former prime minister’s 1MDB-linked cases.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court fixed the date after having heard submissions from the involved parties today.
Najib Abdul Razak will know on Aug 28 whether he succeeds in his legal bid to disqualify Gopal Sri Ram from prosecuting the former prime minister’s 1MDB-linked cases.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court fixed the date after having heard submissions from the involved parties today.
“Decision is fixed for 3 pm on Aug 28,” said judge Mariana Yahya.
Veteran lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah appeared for judicial review applicant Najib, while senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan from the Attorney-General's Chambers acted for the three respondents in the matter.
The three respondents are the attorney-general, former Federal Court judge Sri Ram and the government.
The Aug 28 decision will also be for a separate judicial review application from Shafee to oust Sri Ram from prosecuting the lawyer’s own ongoing RM9.5 million money laundering and tax-evasion case.
In regards to Shafee's own judicial review against Sri Ram's appointment, counsel Muhammad Farhan Muhammad Shafee appeared for the veteran lawyer today.
Sri Ram is the lead deputy public prosecutor for Najib's RM2.28 billion 1MDB corruption case and 1MDB audit report tampering case.
Earlier, during submissions, Shamsul argued that Najib's defence team was precluded from relying on the allegation that Sri Ram tried to coax former attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali to charge the then sitting premier Najib in early 2018.
He submitted that this was because the applicant's initial ground for the legal challenge was that Sri Ram had not been properly appointed by then attorney-general Tommy Thomas per the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
Shamsul noted that the allegation posited an event that took place before Thomas was appointed attorney-general in 2018.
“The (alleged) exchange of WhatsApp messages (purportedly between Sri Ram and Apandi) took place before Thomas was appointed as attorney-general and even before the appointment of Sri Ram as ad hoc DPP.
“The DPP was not implicated in any way by the messages or the affidavit of Apandi Ali.”
“It was not their (initial) pleaded case that Thomas was aware of the content (of the alleged WhatsApp messages). In the judicial review, we challenge the decision-making process.
“We say it is not their pleaded case as their pleaded case was whether it (Sri Ram’s appointment as ad hoc DPP) falls under Section 376 of the CPC or not,” Shamsul said.
He was responding to Shafee’s previous submission that Sri Ram’s appointment was to allegedly charge Najib and that the appointment was wrongly made under Section 376 when it should have been Section 379 of the CPC, among others.
Shafee had said that an alleged past misconduct could still affect whether Sri Ram was a fit and proper person to be appointed as a DPP and his ability to conduct a fair trial in the criminal cases against Najib.
Shafee also alleged that Sri Ram’s appointment as DPP by Thomas was invalid because Thomas had admitted to being a political appointee, among others.
On March 4, it was reported that Thomas had said that following the transition of federal power from Pakatan Harapan to Perikatan Nasional, he resigned from his post because he was a political appointee of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Previously, the Kuala Lumpur High Court had dismissed Najib’s application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings to challenge Sri Ram’s appointment as DPP for his two 1MDB-linked cases.
However, on appeal, the appellate court granted leave to Najib to proceed with the civil jurisdiction legal bid. This was upheld by the Federal Court, which remitted the matter back to the High Court before judge Mariana.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.