Friday 29 Mar 2024
By
main news image

This article first appeared in The Edge Financial Daily on May 28, 2019

KUALA LUMPUR: There is no prima facie case against Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah warranting leave to be granted to initiate contempt proceedings against the senior lawyer, his lawyers David Mathews and Harvinderjit Singh told the High Court yesterday.

They said the affidavit affirmed by Attorney-General (AG) Tommy Thomas did not disclose that he had listened to the recording or read the full transcript of Muhammad Shafee’s press conference and that it cannot be said the AG has personal knowledge of the entire content of the video recording.

Thomas’ affidavit, they said, cannot verify the purported contempt allegedly committed by Muhammad Shafee as it is not within his knowledge.

They further submitted that Thomas’ affidavit is also ambiguous, vague and imprecise as it failed in identifying “the purported judge” in question as mentioned in the press conference on Feb 7.

“A defective affidavit is as good as having none,” they said in the bid to set aside the application for leave to initiate contempt proceedings against Muhammad Shafee.

“We submit that Thomas’ affidavit does not properly verify the facts stated in the statement, therefore this court is wrong to say there is a prima facie case of contempt made against Shafee,” they added.

Further, they said the contempt proceedings should have been heard before the trial judge hearing former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s SRC International case. It should not be heard before another judge as this is akin to shopping for a judge to hear the case, they said.

Earlier, Mathews also expressed his unhappiness over news portals’ reports on High Court Judge Datuk Mohd Firuz Jaffril purportedly chiding senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan for a late submission filing last week.

Mathews said he felt compelled to address the court about what he thought as the reports were unfair, casting Shamsul in a bad light, he said. “[I] hope the media would be mindful of the words used in future,” he added.

Mohd Firuz then said to Shamsul: “If what I’d said [last week] landed you in trouble, it was not my intention.”

Shamsul is representing the AG, who obtained an ex-parte leave on March 1 to proceed with the contempt proceedings against Muhammad Shafee.

Thomas made an ex parte application to the High Court in February to initiate committal proceedings against Muhammad Shafee over his media statement concerning Najib’s SRC case. Muhammad Shafee was named the sole defendant.

In the application, Thomas said Muhammad Shafee is an advocate and solicitor representing Najib charged in the High Court with several offences related to the 1Malaysia Development Bhd scandal.

On Feb 7, after the court proceedings involving Najib in the High Court, Muhammad Shafee was interviewed by several journalists outside the courtroom, recorded by a videographer from Kinitv.com and telecast on KiniTV.

Thomas claimed Muhammad Shafee knew or ought to have known the offensive statement was contemptuous to the judge and would undermine the administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system in Malaysia.

He said Muhammad Shafee also knew or ought to have known the offensive statement would clearly place the trial judge in an embarrassing situation and create uncertainty about the fair and just determination of the criminal case.

He claimed the words were uttered deliberately and with intent by Muhammad Shafee to pressure and influence the decision in that criminal case.

Thomas contended that the offensive statement, made right after the proceedings involving the accused, had only one meaning and was intended to bring disrepute to the courts and judges and that it would undermine the administration of justice and public confidence in the judicial system in Malaysia.

He said considering the words in their entirety, the public would reasonably perceive, if the accused were to be convicted, the trial judge was not straight and was influenced, the witnesses coached and the evidence fabricated.

He also said the words would not only adversely affect the image and prestige of the courts and judges in Malaysia but also embarrass the trial judge, as the words would create uncertainty about the fair and just determination of the case. The hearing continues on June 14.

      Print
      Text Size
      Share