Apex court reserves verdict in Shafee's appeal in suit against M'sian Bar
The Federal Court reserved its decision on lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's appeal today in a suit against the Malaysian Bar, which is linked to Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II case.
The three-person bench chaired by Court of Appeal president Rohana Yusuf reserved its ruling following submissions from Shafee, who represented himself as the appellant, and lawyers for the three respondents.
Apart from Rohana...
The Federal Court reserved its decision on lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's appeal today in a suit against the Malaysian Bar, which is linked to Anwar Ibrahim's Sodomy II case.
The three-person bench chaired by Court of Appeal president Rohana Yusuf reserved its ruling following submissions from Shafee, who represented himself as the appellant, and lawyers for the three respondents.
Apart from Rohana, the bench comprised of Federal Court judges Vernon Ong Lam Kiat and Abdul Rahman Sebli.
Besides the Bar, the other respondents are former attorney-general Tommy Thomas and former Court of Appeal judge VC George.
During today's proceedings conducted via zoom, counsel Ambiga Sreenevasan, Porres Royan and Lambert Rasa-Ratnam appeared for Thomas, George and the Bar respectively.
Shafee is appealing against the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision on May 26, 2016 which dismissed his suit against fellow lawyers Thomas and George as well as the Bar.
The suit was initially premised on both alleged defamation and breach of the Bar's statutory duty. However, the Federal Court today only heard submissions on the issue of the alleged statutory breach issue.
In dismissing the suit, High Court judge Hanipah Farikullah had ruled that the defendants successfully raised the defence of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.
She added that the court found it was improper for Shafee to discuss in-camera evidence during the trial of Anwar's case at a forum in Kelana Jaya after the Federal Court's decision in 2015.
"In-camera" is a legal term that means in private - a process where the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process in court.
In 2015, Shafee filed a suit to stop Thomas and George from tabling a motion against him at the Malaysian Bar annual general meeting (AGM) on March 14 that year.
He obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Kuala Lumpur High Court a day before the AGM to stop the motion from being tabled.
Through the lawsuit, the senior lawyer claimed among others that the defendants had defamed him by filing the motion to the AGM, where they wanted to move him to face disciplinary action.
Hanipah then had ruled that under Section 57 and 93 of the Legal Profession Act, the Bar has the power to discuss disciplinary matters or the conduct of its members.
The judge also noted that while Shafee complained that he was not given the right to be heard, the lawyer could have gone to the AGM to clear his name by the fair process of speaking and defending himself and he was not deprived of the fair process.
On Oct 11, 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed Shafee's appeal against the lower court's verdict.
On Aug 19 last year, the Federal Court granted leave for Shafee to commence with the appeal.
