AGC to pursue contempt action against Shafee over 'Nazi-Germany' view

Summary

• The Attorney-General’s Chambers will initiate contempt of court proceedings against lawyer Shafee Abdullah for comparing a court order in Najib Razak’s royal addendum case to a “Nazi-Germany kind of hearing”, calling the remark a serious attack on judicial integrity.

• Shafee’s legal team had clarified that the comment was made in response to a journalist’s question and was meant to highlight the lack of a proper hearing involving both parties, not to liken the judiciary to Nazi-era practices.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) announced that it will pursue contempt of court proceedings against lawyer Shafee Abdullah, over his “Nazi Germany” reference regarding ex-prime minister Najib Abdul Razak’s royal addendum case.

In a statement today, the AGC said the remark was made in the context of an ongoing case, and “constitutes a serious and unwarranted attack” on the dignity, authority and independence of the judiciary.

“While lawyers retain the right to challenge the judiciary through appropriate legal channels, public statements which damage the court’s reputation or erode public confidence in the administration of justice are unacceptable within our legal system.

“The attorney-general regards this matter seriously as an issue involving constitutional and institutional interests.

“Contempt of court proceedings will be pursued to uphold the rule of law, preserve the integrity of the judicial process and protect the court from unwarranted allegations and public pressure,” the AGC said.

Court order criticised

Shafee had, in a press conference on Thursday, criticised a court order to temporarily stop all proceedings linked to the royal addendum, calling it a unilateral decision that amounted to a “Nazi-Germany kind of hearing”.

He argued that the High Court’s stay order only applies to current proceedings, not future ones like the contempt hearing against former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh.

The case relates to contempt of court proceedings launched by Najib’s legal team against Terrirudin, over his actions in 2024, where he declined to reveal in court the existence of a royal addendum ordering Najib to serve the remainder of his six-year jail term under house arrest.

Najib filed the application with the court on May 21.

The High Court had last month temporarily halted all proceedings related to Najib’s royal addendum application.

The stay comes on the heels of the Federal Court decision to take up the government’s case to challenge a lower court’s ruling that allowed the former prime minister’s appeal for a judicial review on the addendum.

No intent to undermine

In a statement today, Shafee clarified that his remark was not intended to undermine the judiciary or any particular judge, but to educate the public on the essential characteristics of a proper judicial decision under the rule of law, and to reinforce, not undermine, public confidence in the courts by upholding the principles that ensure the legitimacy and integrity of judicial outcomes.

His legal team from Shafee and Co explained that Shafee’s remark was made during an exchange with a journalist.

“The statement made by our client that: ‘It is not valid, it is not a judicial decision. A judicial decision means you hear both parties, since when we do a Nazi Germany kind of hearing. You must hear both parties’ was made during an exchange with a reporter, and must be understood in its proper context as follows:

• The reporter had asked whether there had already been a court order stating that the stay applied to future proceedings.

• In response, our client clarified our position, asserting that such an order was not valid (at most it is an administrative order) in the absence of a hearing involving both parties for clarification and that we will address this matter before her ladyship during the case management dated May 30, 2025.

• The reporter then stubbornly insisted that the order still constituted a “judicial decision.”

• Our client responded by offering a general interpretation of what constitutes a judicial decision, namely, that it must involve both parties being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The comment was intended to underscore that a decision made without affording both parties an opportunity to be heard cannot be properly characterised as judicial in nature. It is here our client said, in the absence of a proper hearing”... it is not a judicial decision. A judicial decision means you hear both parties, since when we do a Nazi Germany kind of hearing.”

“We reiterate that our client has never described the judge’s ruling on the clarification of the stay order as a decision akin to those made during the Nazi-Germany era.

“The remark in question was made solely in the context of explaining the meaning and essence of a ‘judicial decision’ (as opposed to an administrative decision), namely, that it must involve a hearing where both parties are given the opportunity to be heard, in line with fundamental principles of natural justice.

“Further, our client has also never compared the ongoing judicial proceedings to a hearing to Nazi-era governance. In any case, the AGC had requested clarification to be done in open court,” the firm explained.

Najib's contempt bid against ex-AG 'abuse of process', says AGC

'What choice does Najib have other than hauling ex-AG to court?'

Najib files contempt proceedings against ex-AG over royal addendum

Shafee clarifies 'Nazi-Germany' remark